501.BC Armaments/2–1147
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of International Security Affairs (Johnson)
Mr. Herschel Johnson called this morning with regard to the Department’s telegram #43 of February 10 setting forth our views on the present draft disarmament resolution.
He said that Senator Austin had studied the telegram carefully and had stated that he thought the views expressed in it were, on the whole, sound.
Senator and Mr. Herschel Johson both wanted the Department to understand, however, the difficult situation which they are in in New York—Mr. Johnson referred to it as one of the most difficult we have yet been confronted with. Because of this situation, it is extremely difficult for Senator Austin to propose changes in the resolution at today’s meeting of the Council.
I emphasized to Mr. Johnson the fact that I fully understood the difficulties of their situation tactically. I said that was one of the principal reasons why we did not want it pushed to a decision today. It seemed to me particularly, and to others, desirable to let the matter simmer. If no decision is taken today, it may be possible to work toward a text more acceptable to us.
Mr. Johnson said that in the present tactical situation, U.S. Delegation could not afford to be concerned with “semantics.” He and Senator Austin both felt that the proposed substitution of “include” for “and” in paragraph 1 was a mere exercise in semantics. Mr. Johnson said he simply could not see why this was important. To this I replied that we were concerned lest the door be left open for the introduction of proposals which did not encompass safeguards.
Mr. Johnson thought the resolution should be considered as a whole, and that if this were done, the potential dangers we saw in paragraph 1 and in the order of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of 3 would not appear so great.
At this point I indicated our concern over the possibility that we would be placed in a disadvantageous position propaganda-wise.
With regard to the clause relating to the three months time limit, Mr. Johnson again said that it would be very difficult in the present situation to get that eliminated, and I repeated my statement that awareness of this difficulty was the principal reason why we desire to postpone any action for the present. Mr. Johnson wondered whether our concern could not be taken care of by a statement by Senator Austin stating that his understanding of the three months clause was that it set an optimum goal and would spur the commission on, but [Page 407] that people should not be disappointed if the commission did not come forth with significant proposals within that period. I replied that this would certainly help. I thought that any such statement also should reiterate the views expressed by Senator Austin on February 41 relating to timing, particularly the peace treaties. I thought it most important to record publicly that our attitude remained what it had been on February 4.
To this last point Mr. Johnson remarked that our position had in fact changed, to which I replied immediately that this was so only with respect to the proposed committee of the Council. He agreed that was so.
- Reference is to Austin’s address at the 98th Meeting of the Security Council, February 4; for text, see SC, 2nd yr., No. 9, pp. 150–154.↩