Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, General; The United Nations, Volume I

811.002/1–247

Minutes of a Meeting of the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy, Washington, April 3, 1947, 3 p.m.

Washington, April 3, 1947, 3 p.m.

top secret

Present

state	war	navy
Acting Secretary	Secretary Patterson	Secretary Forrestal
Acheson	Asst. Secretary	Under Secretary
Mr. Johnson	Petersen	Sullivan
Mr. Allen	Col. Hamilton	Rear Admiral
Mr. Moseley (SWNCC), Recorder		Wooldridge
u.s. delegation to united nations		u.s. atomic energy commission
Mr. Osborn		Mr. Lilienthal
Mr. Ross		Mr. Marks
Senator Austin

I. U.S. Position on International Atomic Energy Control

decision

General approval of the memorandum of the Executive Committee on the Regulation of Armaments entitled “United States Policy in the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission” [RAC D–6/2],¹ as amended by Mr. Osborn’s proposed alternates to paragraph 3(d) and paragraph 4(c). It was further agreed that the entire memorandum should be revised where necessary by the Executive Committee on the Regulation of Armaments to bring the memorandum in line with the tenor of Mr. Osborn’s amendments.

implementing action

The Executive Committee on the Regulation of Armaments to amend RAC D–6/2 to bring it in line with Mr. Osborn’s amendments.

discussion

Mr. Acheson said the purpose of the Meeting was to consider the next course of procedure that the United States representatives on the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission should follow in the work that is being undertaken by that Commission. He said that the Executive Committee on the Regulation of Armaments had proposed in RAC D–6/2 a somewhat different approach from that which had been agreed upon at the last Meeting when Senator Austin was present. He then asked Senator Austin and Mr. Osborn for their views with respect to the program set forth in this memorandum.

Senator Austin said that there was much in this memorandum that he disapproved. He stated that he did not like the defeatist tone of the memorandum, that we should not assume at the beginning that we cannot make any progress or gain toward international control of atomic energy, and that it is not proper to assume that Russia is not agreed to any of the fundamental principles of control. He added that we should not create a block against the Russians but that rather we should try to work with Russia and Poland as we did the other Members of the Commission. He said that we must have faith that we can reach an agreement with Russia and all countries on this all important matter.

Mr. Osborn said that he did not share Senator Austin’s optimism in the same degree, but he did share his views on what should be done to correctly approach this problem. He said that we must give the Russians a forum where they can discuss their grievances and he pointed out that the Commission has already agreed to the French proposal that the Russian amendments will be considered. He added that we must go along with the British and other Members in defining the functions of a control agency; otherwise we will be placed in a position of obstructing progress.

Mr. Osborn said that the Working Committee of the Commission has asked Committee 2 of the Commission to study such questions as the detailed powers, characteristics and functions of an international control agency.

Mr. Osborn said that by starting with specific functional proposals we would not only make better progress towards the final goal but we would pin the Russians down to specific points and thus get their definite views. He said that we could present our arguments and proposed definitions for these functions, but that our proposals would be of a general nature and that it would not be necessary to provide any further technical information.

Senator Austin said that he was in agreement with Mr. Osborn’s views in this connection. He said that so far all we have is agreement on certain general principles, but that by introducing specific proposals as to functions and definitions as to inspection we should be able to bring out the concrete Russian viewpoint. Senator Austin reiterated his previous point that we must face this problem with courage and not with a defeatist viewpoint; that we must start with a sound constructive program and that in this way we will accomplish most.

Mr. Osborn said that we must seek a water-tight treaty which will prevent national rivalries, and that the only possible way of getting the Russians to agree to such a treaty is to develop a treaty with which we and all other Members of the Commission agreed. Once we do define such a treaty and obtain agreement of the other Members to it, our hope then would be that events will take place which will force the Russians to change their policy and agree to this treaty.

Mr. Patterson said that he was in agreement with Mr. Osborn in this connection. He added that he agreed that our hope for a reversal of Russian policy depends upon the ruling clique being eliminated or other major changes taking place in the world situation. He added that he believed that the present Russian Delegation undoubtedly were acting under instructions to stall in all considerations on this subject.

Mr. Acheson said that he believed that we should try to concentrate on essential points of international control so that at the end of our work we would know where we did or did not agree, and at least we would have made progress up to this point.

Mr. Osborn introduced two proposed alternate paragraphs for paragraph 3(d) and 4(c) of the Executive Committee’s memorandum which outlined an approach more in line to his previously stated views. Mr. Lilienthal said that he understood that Mr. Osborn proposed to only draft the purposes of the functions of an international control agency, and not get into the technical terms which would be necessary for treaty drafting or for a legalistic approach to the problem. Mr. Osborn said that Mr. Lilienthal’s understanding was correct, and that proposals and discussions in the Commission would go no further than information already released would allow them.

Mr. Osborn also distributed for the information of the Members a “Summary of Principal Subjects to be incorporated in Specific Proposals for the International Control of Atomic Energy”.² He said that he anticipated that the first five months work in the Commission would be devoted to the items on the first page of this Summary which were the operational and developmental functions of the international agency and a definition of terms to be used in the treaty.

Mr. Forrestal said that he was concerned that the public may misinterpret discussion of control provisions in the Atomic Energy Commission for progress. He added that great care must be exercised that the public is properly informed in this connection.

Mr. Acheson asked for the views of the other Members to Mr. Osborn’s proposed amendments to paragraphs 3(d) and 4(c) of the memorandum of the Executive Committee on Regulation of Armaments, stating that he was in general agreement with them and that he felt the entire memorandum should be modified to bring it in line with the thoughts and principles set forth in Mr. Osborn’s amendments. Mr. Forrestal and Mr. Patterson said that they were in agreement with Mr. Acheson in this connection.

Supplement

II. Proposal Regarding U.S. Position on Conventional Armaments

decision

None.

implementing action

Paper on this subject introduced by Senator Austin to be referred to the Executive Committee on the Regulation of Armaments for study.

discussion

Senator Austin read a memorandum which he had received from Wilder Foote dated April 1,³ suggesting that we abandon our “present defensive negative strategy” and “formulate and publicize a constructive positive, specific proposal on conventional armaments”. The Senator said that he would appreciate having this proposal very carefully studied, indicating that he agreed with the approach indicated.

Mr. Forrestal said that he agreed in principle to this proposal but reiterated his warning about misleading the public.

Mr. Patterson said that this proposal sounded reasonable but that he would like to be assured that any such proposal we might develop would emphasize at the outset in bold type that conclusion of the peace treaties and the provision of implementing machinery were prerequisites of any reduction of conventional armaments.

1. Brackets appear in the source text. The memorandum is not printed; for a revised version, RAC D–6/2a Final, April 15, see p. 459.
2. Not printed; prepared by the United States Delegation to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission; circulated in the Executive Committee on Regulation of Armaments as RAC D–14/1, April 4 (Department of State Disarmament Files).
3. Ante, p. 450.