501.BC Atomic/7–2247
The Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (Rusk) to the Deputy United States Representative on the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (Osborn)
Dear Mr. Osborn: I wish to reply at once to your letter of July 22nd1 regarding the form of the Commission’s report to the Security Council, and the question of having the report considered by the General Assembly in September.
[Page 571]A telegram of instruction should reach you shortly on the form of the report. Because of the fundamental issues involved the text of the telegram will require considerable clearance. In substance it will state that the AEC report should be based on the assumption that the AEC will in due course complete the task assigned to it by the directives of the General Assembly and the Security Council. At the same time, however, the report should not conceal but should clearly delineate the basic disagreements which are now blocking the rapid establishment of an effective international system for the control of atomic energy.
Your question on consideration of the Atomic Energy Commission’s report by the General Assembly is one which has been bothering us a great deal. It will be impossible to keep the subject out of the General Assembly if any members wish to have it discussed. It will be comparatively easy for the Assembly to debate the matter in connection with the report of the Security Council. Further, there is a belief in many responsible quarters that we are faced with two dangers (1) that of not obtaining an agreement before other nations get atomic weapons, and (2) that of creating the illusion through continued discussion that more progress toward agreement is being made than is the case.
On Monday, the 28th, some of the senior officers of the Department will consider briefly whether the General Assembly should not at its September session call upon the Atomic Energy Commission for a final report by a given date, such final report to be commented upon by the Security Council and considered by a special session of the General Assembly early next year. The purpose would be to make a strong effort to obtain maximum agreement or, lacking such agreement, to clear the way politically for any new approach which might be necessary in the interest of our own security.
I mention this prior to responsible department consideration because you raise the matter in your letter and because your views will be solicited at once if it is concluded that any such idea has enough merit to be worth developing further. My own impression is that some such “disengaging action” is necessary if we are to achieve no agreement along present lines because of the political difficulty we should incur if we simply try to pull out of the present discussion and undertake other measures.
Any comments which you care to furnish at any time on this sort of question will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
- Not printed.↩