Department of State Atomic Energy Files
Memorandum by Mr. John M. Hancock to the United States Representative on the Atomic Energy Commission (Baruch)
I am seriously concerned about a letter from Sir Hartley Shawcross to Senator Connally under date of December 2. This letter contains his suggestion that we go ahead with the atomic energy problem, get it into treaty form, and then put it on ice until other weapons have been covered by a similar plan.
There would be an obvious advantage if this result could be attained, but I am convinced that his suggestion is not one which should be countenanced by our government. It would he an attempt to introduce a new element in the negotiations and it would go to our good faith [sic] in making our original proposals with reference to atomic energy. In fact, we did propose unilateral disarmament in the field [Page 1082] of atomic energy, and we did it without implying any such thought as Sir Hartley Shawcross now advances. We were the only nation to have the bomb and we offered to give it up on conditions which were briefly stated in your June 14 speech as follows:
“When an adequate system for control of atomic energy, including the renunciation of the bomb as a weapon, has been agreed upon and put into effective operation and condign punishments set up for violations of the rules of control which are to be stigmatized as international crimes, we propose that—
- “1. Manufacture of atomic bombs shall stop;
- “2. Existing bombs shall be disposed of pursuant to the terms of the treaty; and
- “3. The Authority shall be in possession of full information as to the know-how for the production of atomic energy.”
The only out we would have would lie in the following words:
“But before a country is ready to relinquish any winning weapons it must have more than words to reassure it. It must have a guarantee of safety, not only against the offenders in the atomic area but against the illegal users of other weapons—bacteriological, biological, gas—perhaps—why not?—against war itself.”
I think this second paragraph as contained was intended to introduce the idea of the outlawry of war itself. I don’t regard it as a withdrawal of the other specific provisions with regard to atomic bombs. Certainly there has never been any thought that we would not go through with the disarmament in the field of atomic energy unless we had a total disarmament. The reference to the “other weapons—bacteriological, biological, gas” seems to me to be used primarily as an introduction to the idea of abolishing war itself.
I believe that if an open attempt is made to put the atomic energy plan on ice awaiting general disarmament, we are going to be accused of bad faith. The whole basis of our approach has been that if we could get perhaps disarmament in the atomic field in which we alone have possession of the weapon, we might have a good atmosphere in which to go on toward the effective outlawing of other weapons.
While one might be inclined to sit on the side lines and take no position should the British press this plan of theirs, I don’t see how we here can be in such a position. If the British, for their own reasons, prefer not to ratify the treaty, that’s another matter.
I don’t believe we should give any countenance to a joint move in this direction, and if the matter gets to public discussion I believe we are going to be forced to take a position in opposition. The danger lies in the possibility that the British will make this plan public without knowing of our position in advance.
[Page 1083]If you agree with me, I think the matter should be discussed with Secretary Byrnes, Senator Austin, and possibly Senator Connally.