The Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
21. I had a talk this morning with Cadogan along lines of Department’s No. 2, January 6, 7 p.m. I outlined our views regarding the GA Resolution on regulation and reduction of armaments fully and did not disguise our dissatisfaction that the general question had been brought to an issue at this time, a view shared by Cadogan. He is awaiting instructions but agrees with our policy regarding prior consideration of the AEC report. Pie believes, however, that there will be considerable opposition in the Council to any attempt to bar all discussion of other phases of disarmament before the atomic energy problem has been solved. While recognizing that the problem of security involving the atomic energy question is one which must have a solution before any profitable general discussion of all phases of disarmament can take place, he thinks that we will find it difficult to find convincing arguments that the general problem should not be discussed. He said that he had very long experience with the old disarmament conference and that he cannot believe the present consideration of the problem will be any less complicated and discursive than it was before. I reiterated our strong conviction that a general discussion of the GA Resolution could serve no useful purpose at the present moment; that if we can reach agreement on the atomic energy problem and subsequently on the other weapons of mass destruction which are under the terms of reference of the AEC, a solution of the remaining phases of the disarmament problem should offer relatively little [Page 348] difficulty. Cadogan expressed no disagreement with this view, but reiterated that others might find it difficult to accept this argument as a reason for not carrying on concurrent discussions of the general problem. Even if he has not received instructions, he will support our position for prior consideration of the atomic energy report.