Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

Department of State Atomic Energy Files

Sir Hartley Shawcross of the United Kingdom Delegation to the General Assembly to Senator Connally of the United States Delegation

[New York,] 2 December, 1946.

The Political Committee is now faced with four separate proposals on disarmament. It seems to me most desirable that we should all try to evolve some concrete and constructive plan on which we can secure at least substantial agreement, and it may be useful, therefore, if I indicate in a little more detail than I was able to do in the Committee how we see the position.

It appears to us that any disarmament proposals ought to be based on the following four general principles:

(1) The atomic side of regulation and disarmament must continue to be handled by the Atomic Energy Commission. The Assembly must do nothing to interfere with or discourage their work.

(2) No partial system of disarmament must be agreed to in the sense that we must not get into a position where, for instance, the manufacture of atomic bombs is prohibited, but the manufacture of other weapons of mass destruction, e.g., rockets, is not. If we agree to the abolition of the atom bomb before we get agreement on other weapons subsequent agreement as to these might be vetoed. Therefore, the Atomic Energy Commission should complete its present work and put forward a plan for control. When this has been generally accepted, its actual coming into force should be suspended until a similar plan (which would not present anything like the same difficulties) has been agreed for other weapons.

(3) Any system of disarmament must provide for an immediate and effective system of control and inspection. Disclosure of information about armaments must not precede agreement on the system of control and inspection.

(4) The operation of the control and inspection agency and the extension of its work to newly invented weapons must not be subject to the veto.

In the light of these principles, I am not altogether happy about your present draft resolution,⁵⁰ If it goes any further than the Assembly has already gone in these matters, it may be thought that it throws added emphasis both on priority of regulation for the atomic bomb, and on the position of the Security Council. Paragraph 2 appears to give precedence to the question of the prohibition of atomic weapons by requiring the Security Council to give first consideration to the report which will be made by the Atomic Energy Commission. Paragraph 3 recommends the Security Council to give prompt consideration to the working out of a control system in regard to atomic energy. Might this not possibly prejudice the proposal which may eventually come forward from the Atomic Energy Commission for the establishment of an Atomic Development Authority? It might be said hereafter that the Assembly had, in Paragraph 3, adopted the view that the control system in connection with atomic energy and other forms of armaments was to be established within the framework of the Security Council, which is, of course, what the Soviet propose.

On the other hand, I do not think there is anything in the Canadian and Australian proposals which involved any interference with the work of the Atomic Energy Commission. Paragraph 3 of the Canadian Resolution, on the contrary, urges that the Commission should proceed expeditiously with its task. Paragraph 5 recommends the establishment (under a treaty to be formulated by the Security Council in accordance with Article 26) of a permanent International Commission of Control, with power to make inspections, etc. This is not necessarily intended to take the place of the suggested Atomic Development Authority: indeed, that authority might itself be the proposed Commission. Alternatively, since the problems of atomic control may differ from those concerning other weapons, it might be better to have two permanent International bodies, the one dealing with atomic matters, the second with other weapons of mass destruction. The vital thing, as I see it, is that these bodies should operate quite independently of the veto; should be able to establish whatever system of control and inspection which appeared appropriate from time to time, and should be able to bring newly invented mass destruction weapons under control without danger of a veto.

A further point in the Canadian plan is that the prohibition of atomic weapons is linked with that of other weapons of mass destruction.

It seems to me that it may be possible (and it is certainly desirable that we should attempt it) to find some solution which we can all support, and which includes the best points in the American, Canadian and Australian proposals. I particularly like the direction to the Security Council that they should draw up a draft convention in the light of the Atomic Energy Commission’s eventual report, for this does require action.

The Soviet Resolution in its present form includes a provision for the disclosure of full information about all armaments “this information to be submitted when the Security Council will consider the proposals for general reduction of armaments.” This means, of course, that the information is to be submitted before the Security Council has decided to do anything but talk. We shall feel it necessary to oppose the disclosure of information until a control organization has been established.

As you said you are going to discuss with your Delegation the way in which your proposals should be presented to the Committee, I felt it might be helpful if I explained our present attitude.

50. Supra.