501.BC Atomic/6–1347: Telegram
The Deputy United States Representative on the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (Osborn) to the Secretary of State
566. Would appreciate your advice on how we should try to shape the form of the next report of the Atomic Energy Commission. We are forced to consider possibility that Commission will be unable in next three months to reconcile conflicting views of Russians and of majority who approved the year-end report and may desire to submit to Security Council in September two alternative proposals: the amplification of the Commission’s first report as developed in working papers now before Committee Two; and the other, the Russian proposal submitted this week. Open discussion and comparison of the two plans together should provide favorable opportunity for sound public understanding. This fact and the possibility of presenting the two plans to the Assembly as well as Security Council might force Russians [Page 509] considerably to modify their position and bring them closer to agreement at later date. The choice is between a loose plan encouraging national rivalries and a strong plan evidently aimed at real control. In this suggestion we are endeavoring to find some way by which these differences can be made generally clear and ultimately the Russian point of view changed.