USUN Files
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. John C. Boss, Adviser, United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly
Subject: Disarmament; Atomic Energy Commission
| Participants: | Senator Austin |
| Mr. Bernard Baruch | |
| Mr. John Hancock | |
| Mr. Ferdinand Eberstadt | |
| Mr. John Ross |
Mr. Baruch, at his request, came in to see the Senator at 11:30. The discussion continued until one o’clock.
While we were waiting for Mr. Hancock and Mr. Eberstadt to arrive Mr. Baruch made a few preliminary remarks. He made a reference to the importance of punishment and said that in developing the other cardinal principles of our atomic and disarmament policy, we should not neglect this factor. He also said that he and his associates had in mind, among other things, to discuss evidences of a conciliatory attitude on the part of the Russians which they felt they had seen. Mr. Baruch said that he was always wary of Greeks bearing presents but at the same time he also always thought that it was sometimes a good thing to have a look at the presents.
[Page 1026]When Mr. Hancock and Mr. Eberstadt arrived, Mr. Eberstadt stated the purpose of their call, roughly along the following lines. In their work in the Atomic Energy Commission during the past two or three weeks they had seen evidence of a softening in the Russian position. It was becoming clearly more apparent to the Russians that they were in a situation, from which they had no good way out, of a very substantial majority of the Commission being for the United States proposals and against them. He said that they had had a test vote a week or ten days ago which they had anticipated would come out nine in favor of the United States with France abstaining and the Soviet Union and Poland voting in the negative. What actually happened was that there were ten votes for the United States, France voting with us, and two abstentions, namely, the Soviet Union and Poland.
Mr. Eberstadt went on to say that at the second and third Russian levels there had been evidence of a more conciliatory, softening attitude. Based on these sources he thought the Russians might be trying to find a way out of their present dilemma with regard to the atomic energy work in two ways; first, by using the Molotov general disarmament proposals as a means of confusing the atomic energy issues, second, by suggesting that with regard to the latter issues the time had perhaps come for a discussion between Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Molotov. It was the view of Mr. Baruch and his associates, Mr. Eberstadt said, that we should not allow ourselves to be misled in either of these directions. On the former point it was very important that we do not allow the general disarmament proposals to confuse the atomic energy matter. On the second point Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Molotov had discussed this matter fully in Moscow last December and again at the Assembly in London; they had agreed upon the fundamental principles. At this time it was felt further discussion would merely serve to take the focus off the Commission’s work as such.
Senator Austin turned his attention to the first of these points, namely, the question of disarmament. He said that we have been giving a good deal of thought to this question, having in mind the importance of not detracting from or delaying the atomic energy work, that he and I yesterday afternoon had read over a long paper which was set up in the form of a draft resolution which was probably much too long as a resolution, but that regardless of its form it was, in effect, a statement of all of the objectives and problems involved in the disarmament question, particular attention being paid to the constitutional basis under the United Nations Charter for the various specific proposals made.87 The Senator then asked me to read this paper which I did.
[Page 1027]After I had read it, Mr. Eberstadt was kind enough to say that he thought it was a magnificent paper, and that with regard to the atomic energy program he thought that it filled the bill and hit the nail on the head completely.
Mr. Baruch and Mr. Hancock appeared to agree with this general estimate.
Senator Austin queried whether the other gentlemen did not think that the paper was much too long. Mr. Eberstadt said he thought that while some of the matters relating to procedures, et cetera, might be taken out, he nevertheless felt that for a matter of this great importance there was much value in having a very full statement of all of these important points, having in mind that we would be establishing here, in effect, in such a resolution a worldwide basis for full public understanding of the principal points and issues involved. Mr. Baruch and Mr. Hancock appeared to agree.
We then discussed the preamble material in this paper, Senator Austin raising the question whether all of this preambular material might not be boiled down to the fundamental issue of the whole objective of the United Nations. Mr. Baruch seemed to react favorably to this idea. Mr. Eberstadt seemed to feel that while some boiling down could be accomplished, he nevertheless felt that there were some points in the preambular material which should be retained. I suggested that it was of great importance that the two fundamental principles contained in the paragraphs relating to multilateral, rather than unilateral, disarmament and to effective safeguards should be covered in the preamble and strongly affirmed. These were such fundamental principles, from our point of view, that it was perhaps not realistic to assume that any substantial progress could be made in the disarmament field unless these two principles were accepted. This did not, of course, mean that we would be putting forward any preconceived or half-baked ideas about, for example, the particular forms that safeguards might take in the different phases of disarmament. These were all open questions and part of the work of the proposed disarmament commission itself. Mr. Eberstadt and the others appeared to agree with this viewpoint.
There was then general agreement that in addition to eliminating the procedural material, the draft resolution could be further boiled down by omitting some of the itemizing of particular things that would be done and by attempting to cut down on some of the repetitious material. We then discussed some of the relatively minor points which Mr. Eberstadt raised as follows.
- 1.
- He had some doubt whether Canada should be included by name and by right as a permanent member. This was, of course, vital in the atomic energy case because of Canada’s particular relationship [Page 1028] to this problem. We indicated that we saw no real reason why Canada should be included in this way.
- 2.
- Is a treaty necessary in order to establish and make the commission operative or can we operate on the basis of a General Assembly resolution? I pointed out that we were not here attempting to set up an operating agency which probably would require a treaty, but a policy-making and planning agency which, I thought, was clearly within the powers of the General Assembly and would not require any treaty implementation.
- 3.
- On the general question of reporting by the proposed commission, Mr. Eberstadt said he would like to study this more carefully. He had one thought and that is whether we had adequately covered the point of the commission being able to report on its own authority.
- 4.
- With regard to the paragraph on relationships between the Permanent Disarmament Commission and the Atomic Energy Commission, where we state that the former should not infringe upon or impede “unduly” the work of the latter, Mr. Eberstadt felt that the word unduly was unfortunate and could be twisted by the Russians. We readily agreed that this word was not at all necessary.
- 5.
- He hoped that it would be possible to get in something about nipping aggression in the bud. (This, in a way, is the same idea as Senator Austin expressed yesterday about “removing the means for conducting aggressive warfare”.)
There was then some further general discussion about presentation with particular reference to Mr. Baruch’s experience in the Atomic Energy Commission and the procedure they had followed of making, first, a fundamental statement of principles which they then followed up by fuller statements setting forth in greater detail some of the aspects of the principles originally stated. It was indicated that copies of these various papers would be sent to us.
With reference to the paragraph under the statement of functions which concerns the proposed commission as a clearing house and coordinating center, Mr. Hancock, while indicating his understanding of an agreement with the objective sought, thought that the wording could be improved in order to avoid some of the unfortunate wording used so much, during the war, in Washington.
Mr. Baruch then said that he would like to make a few off-the-cuff comments. He said that the first statement by Senator Austin will attract much more attention than any second, third, or fourth statements he might make. He said that the first statement, therefore, he felt, should be based fully on “high grounds”. For this reason he would incidentally leave out anything more than the bare minimum relating to procedures and put this kind of material into supplemental papers.
[Page 1029]Reverting to the theme of high grounds, Mr. Baruch said he hoped that Senator Austin would find it possible to develop the theme of elimination of war as an objective. He said he fully realized that this was considered to be an unrealistic sort of thing, but that he nevertheless thought the human yearning for the reestablishment of this objective in terms which were associated with some reasonable hope of accomplishment was tremendous and should be met. He said when he had discussed with the State Department the original presentation of his material in the Atomic Energy Commission he had been advised that the best thing to do would be merely to lay the Acheson-Lilienthal Report on the table. He said he had told Secretary Byrnes that he had to do more than this. He said that if he were going to do a job he had to get into it the basic convictions that he had held strongly for a long time.
He then went on to say that his second major point was a plea that in his statement Senator Austin should discuss the question of punishment. He said there must be no interference with the daily operations. He said that also there should be no interference with the punishment. He said that they must not veto the daily operations and they must not veto punishment.
Mr. Baruch said that he knew his views with regard to the veto were not exactly popular. He made it clear that he was for the veto given present circumstances, but he thought (and Mr. Eberstadt subsequently developed this point a little more fully) that when the United Nations reached the point of going beyond the Charter and making a solemn agreement in a field as important as atomic energy or disarmament, they must be willing to go beyond the Charter as well with regard to the veto.
Discussion of this point developed that in effect Mr. Baruch was suggesting the addition of a fourth cardinal point, namely, enforcement to the three cardinal points which we already had, that is, no unilateral disarmament, effective safeguards, and get on with the work of the Atomic Energy Commission.
In response to Senator Austin’s question whether it would be necessary in dealing with the enforcement question to get into the veto, Mr. Baruch and Mr. Eberstadt both said that there was no possibility of ducking the question, that it would be asked and it would be said that there is no possibility of enforcement because of the veto or if there were going to be any enforcement what would you do about the veto.
Mr. Baruch, apologizing to the Senator for being so vehement and explaining that he was only because of his deep conviction and sincerity, said that he hoped from the bottom of his heart that in the initial statement on this disarmament proposal nothing would be reserved [Page 1030] that the Senator has in the back of his head. He said he thought we must speak out very plainly on these fundamental questions.
By agreement I gave a copy of the paper which I had read to Mr. Hancock, explaining to him that it was very much of a first draft working paper which Senator Austin and I had been over only yesterday evening, that no one else had copies of it.
The discussion then concluded on a very friendly and cordial and cooperative note, it being understood that each group would keep in the very closest touch with the other.
After Mr. Baruch and his associates had left Senator Austin telephoned Secretary Byrnes and made an appointment to see him at 2:30 Friday. It was agreed that meanwhile I should try to boil down this present paper to somewhat more manageable proportions taking into account as much as possible of the discussions we had just had as a basis for discussion with the Secretary.