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

501.BC Atomic/6–1047: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom

secret
us urgent

Washington, June 10, 1947—9 p.m.

2486. For the Ambassador from the Secretary. Amb Austin NY recently told informally by UK Del UN Atomic Energy Commission that a new Brit plan re international control of atomic energy has been submitted Bevin. Plan prepared by Sir George Thomson who has recently joined UK Del, reported contemplate much less strict control than regarded by US as essential.

Consistent US position, embodied Acheson-Lilienthal proposals and Baruch proposal in UNAEC June 14, and incorporated first report UNAEC Dec 31, 1946, has been that effective international control requires international control agency possessing positive functions re production of fissionable materials, research and development. US view has consistently been that reliance on inspection alone completely inadequate satisfy basic security requirements.

Nine other members UNAEC including UK supported US position in approving Dec 31 report that body. We had assumed that UK, as well as Canada which has taken lead in recent work in UNAEC designed present more detailed description necessary positive functions of control agency, continued support our views.

Since first meeting UNAEC June 1946 USSR has consistently opposed US position, and only USSR and Poland failed concur Dec 31 report. At Gromyko’s request AEC is holding plenary meeting June 11 at which he will present new Soviet proposals of a character now unknown to US, but undoubtedly intended be diversionary and divisive.

Pls see Bevin immediately to convey message from me along following lines:

• “1. This Government is greatly concerned over the possibility that the UK no longer believes that an international atomic authority having positive functions of ownership and management is indispensable to effective international control of atomic energy to ensure its use for peaceful purposes only. From informal conversation with Cadogan and Sir George Thomson it appears (a) that Brit Gov may have come to conclusion that Soviet Union will never agree to a system of international ownership and that the other UNAEC countries will therefore be best advised to content themselves with some scheme of international inspection in another frame of reference; (b) that Brit Gov actually has under consideration such a plan; (c) that it may be prepared to propose or support such a plan in UN.
• 2. This is first indication that this Gov has received that UK does not support major elements of proposal put forward by AEC to SC on Dec 31, 1946. Indeed the mutual support and common front of UK and US have been of greatest importance in UN effort.
• 3. This cooperation is all more important as we approach the Sept report of AEC to SC; I regard it as critically important UK should not under present circumstances present or support any proposal which would weaken the position and solidarity of UNAEC countries other than Soviet group.
• 4. It would be most unfortunate if UK were to act on foregoing lines without further consultation with US. Such action would create great confusion, indicate apparent division among Western powers, and confuse the pattern of foreign relations in a context wider than the atomic issue.
• 5. I, therefore, hope you will defer approval of any plan that may be before you pending further consultation with US.”

For your info we are prepared send immediately upon receipt report your conversation with Bevin an expert having full background of negotiations NY to advise with you.¹

Marshall

1. In telegram 3247, June 16, the Embassy in the United Kingdom transmitted to the Secretary of State Bevin’s assurances that he desired “to work out as soon as possible a mutually agreeable solution of the problem of international control of atomic energy.” (501.BO Atomic/6–1647)