Department of State Atomic Energy Files
Memorandum by Mr. Joseph Chase64
Remarks on Various Proposals in the General Assembly on the Regulation and Reduction of Armaments Which Touch on the Work of the Atomic Energy Commission
brief:
Three main points are made in this memorandum. The first is that, upon close inspection and reading, it is impossible to state the extent, if any, of recent U.S.S.R. concessions on inspection, veto and controls. The second is that it is impossible to know what Mr. Molotov meant when talking about*Conventions, international control and inspection, and irrelevance of the veto, until we get down to concrete cases and smoke him out. The third is that the position of various countries on the use of the veto in the application of sanctions may not be in conformity with the United States’ plan for the control of atomic energy.
In his speech before Committee 1 of the General Assembly on December 4, 1946, Foreign Minister Molotov made a number of points whose meanings are either not yet clear or are not in conformity with the United States’ plan for controlling atomic energy.
1. The first point concerns the creation of two control commissions; one, “for the control of the execution of decision regarding the reduction of armaments”; the second, “for the control of the execution of the decision regarding the prohibition of the use of atomic energy for military purposes”. The Security Council will establish these commissions which would be international and would have at their disposal “means of inspection for verifying the situation in all countries”.
It has not yet been made clear just what was meant by control, inspection and verification of the situation. The U.S.S.R. presses for passing these resolutions, leaving clarification to be worked out later. As a minimum it may mean a body with international representation which would audit the figures on troops and weapons supplied to it by national governments.
What form inspection is to take is not yet clear. In reality, no concession was made on this point by Mr. Molotov. He merely voiced acceptance of a principle that had previously been agreed to in the [Page 1097] terms of reference of the Atomic Energy Commission, etc. In this connection, it will be recalled that Professor Alexandrov has refused to participate in the discussions of the last two informal meetings of Committee 2 because aerial photography and ground surveys were being discussed as a means of detecting clandestine atomic energy activities. Aerial photography was taboo because it was military reconnaissance, and both were “political” questions.
2. It is significant that the original proposal for a commission for the control of the execution of the decision regarding the prohibition of the use of atomic energy for military purposes did not mention the necessary parallel control of this energy for peaceful purposes. This separation may be corrected by paragraph 2 of the American plan for the regulation and reduction of armaments (accepted by the U.S.S.R.) which calls on the Atomic Energy Commission to expedite its report and on the Security Council to expedite its consideration of that report. The control commission may be the one recommended by the Atomic Energy Commission. There was a positive development in this connection when Mr. Molotov accepted an amendment on 6 December to ensure that atomic energy and other scientific discoveries and technological developments would be utilized for the benefit of mankind.
3. The original U.S.S.R. amendment also urged the original Gromyko convention and called on the Security Council to expedite consideration of a draft convention for the prohibition of atomic weapons. The meeting on 6 December added to this convention, or in separate conventions, the prohibition of other weapons for mass destruction and the creation of an international system of control and inspection. These conventions may be the treaty we are working for; but we must make sure that they will be based on the recommendations of the Atomic Energy Commission and therefore include the control of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. This point has not been clarified as yet.
4. The U.S.S.R. has continued to maintain that the veto will not operate in these commissions, which shall be established within the framework of the Security Council. The United States’ proposals submitted to the Atomic Energy Commission on 5 December placed the agency within the United Nations. They have refused, to date, to include these statements in the terms of reference of these commissions as unnecessary. A careful reading of their proposals indicates that, at most, the U.S.S.R. will waive the veto right in the day-to-day operation of the control commissions. The Security Council will still “bear the main responsibility for international peace and security”, and anything bearing on punishments and sanctions will still be subject to the veto. It will be recalled that after Molotov spoke on 4 December accepting Senator Connally’s plan with Soviet amendments, [Page 1098] Wilgress,65 Canada, agreed that the veto would not apply during the work of the control commissions, but that when it came to the application of sanctions arising out of inspection reports the use of the veto would be in “strict accord with the realities of the situation”. He further added that since such application of sanctions would amount to a state of war, the veto was unimportant. Parodi had previously made a similar analysis, and the Australians have also expressed approval of this analysis. The United Kingdom has not been clear on this point either. China has indicated that it was willing to forego the veto on atomic energy matters, but it is not clear whether this includes the use of force in the application of sanctions. It is not known whether this is the official position of these countries or whether there is a lack of coordination between the political representatives and the atomic energy representatives of these countries. It may be advisable to get clarification on this point at the highest level.
5. There are some factors making for optimism in assessing the chances for agreement to the United States’ plan for the control of atomic energy.
- (a)
- Poor economic situation in the U.S.S.R. Reports indicate that the economic situation is not improving as anticipated in the Soviet Union. Stalin has indicated interest in a huge loan and Vyshinsky recalled at Madison Square Garden on 2 December66 that Stalin had said in 1927 that Communist Russia and the capitalist states could get along economically. The U.S.S.R. needs help in reconstruction and will compromise to the extent necessary.
- (b)
- In the atomic energy field, there may be a shortage of raw materials and certainly of equipment and trained personnel. The diversion of these latter is all the more difficult because of the economic situation in the U.S.S.R. Compromises may be made by the U.S.S.R. to gain the benefits of atomic energy.
- (c)
- The U.S.S.R. seems to have decided that the possibilities for gains by being “tough” have been exhausted and has adopted a more conciliatory attitude.
All the above, with the possible exception of (b) are temporary phenomena and it seems desirable to proceed as rapidly as possible toward our goal. It is particularly desirable to get clarification on what is meant by inspection, control, convention, veto power in the control commissions and also whether the United States’ plan submitted via the Atomic Energy Commission to the Security Council will form the basis for the control commission mentioned by Mr. Molotov.
A further possibility, and one to be guarded against, may be the result of Soviet difficulty in making headway in developing atomic energy. They may agree to the initial stages for the sake of gaining information and then attempt to pull out of international agreements.
- Staff member, United States Delegation to the Atomic Energy Commission.↩
- In Russian, a convention is synonymous with a treaty but usually means a multilateral treaty. [Footnote in the original.]↩
- L. D. Wilgress, Alternate Canadian Representative to the General Assembly.↩
- Reference is to Vyshinsky’s address before a rally sponsored by the National Council of Soviet-American Friendship.↩