Department of State Atomic Energy Files
Minutes of a Meeting of the Combined Policy Committee at the Department of State, December 15, 1947, 3 p.m.
| Present: | Members |
| The Acting Secretary of State (in the Chair) as alternate for the Secretary of State | |
| The Secretary of Defense | |
| The Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission | |
| The British Ambassador, Lord Inverchapel | |
| Sir Gordon Munro | |
| The Canadian Ambassador, Mr. Hume Wrong, as alternate for Mr. C. D. Howe | |
| By Invitation | |
| Dr. Bush | |
| Mr. Kennan | |
| Mr. Wilson | |
| Mr. Volpe | |
| Admiral Sir Henry Moore | |
| Mr. Bateman | |
| Mr. Ignatieff | |
| Mr. Wells | |
| Dr. Cockroft | |
| Mr. Peirson | |
| Mr. Makins | |
| Secretariat | |
| Mr. Gullion | |
| Mr. Maclean | |
| Mr. Stone |
I. Minutes
It was agreed that the minutes of the previous meeting,1 together with the minutes of the present meeting, should be submitted for approval at the next meeting.
II. Procedure
Mr. Lovett suggested that the procedure of the present meeting should be to consider the reports of the sub-groups appointed at the meeting on Wednesday, December 10th.
III. Information
Mr. Lovett said that the committee had before it the report (appended to these minutes as Tab A)2 of the sub-group on the exchange of scientific and technical information. He asked Dr. Bush to comment on this report.
Dr. Bush said that the report indicated nine areas in which the cooperation in scientific and technical fields might appropriately be started at the present time. The sub-group were unanimously agreed that the areas defined represented a good start but that the list was not exclusive. He said that further definition would be necessary.
It was generally agreed that clear definitions of these areas of cooperation would be developed as discussions went on between the experts concerned and that other areas will be found where interchange of information is desirable. It was emphasized in the discussion that the areas defined by the technical sub-group were the immediately desirable areas of exchange of information and technical cooperation.
Mr. Lovett observed that the report of the sub-group represented a notable advance in the field of technical cooperation and wished to be sure that all members of the committee agreed that this was not an exclusive list. He suggested that there should be some continuing group of technicians qualified to keep possible fields of exchange under [Page 899] review. This is the type of thing which does not lend itself to definition or absolute limits. It would be necessary to redefine and establish boundaries as we go along.
Mr. Lilienthal emphasized that the exchange of information was a continuing process of interpretation and establishment of new areas from time to time.
It was generally agreed that this meeting of minds on the desirability of exchanging information should be clearly recorded in these minutes, with a reference to III (A) in the minutes of the C.P.C. meeting of December 10th.
Mr. Lovett desired it to be recorded that the report of the subgroup on information was accepted with thanks and that discussions would continue on a technical level.
IV. Materials
Mr. Lovett said that the sub-group on materials had submitted factual reports (appended to these minutes as Tab B and Tab C)3 on the supply and requirements situation.
Lord Inverchapel noted that in the United Kingdom view the report of the sub-group reflected a conservative estimate of supplies and that the situation was perhaps not as bad as it appeared.
Mr. Wilson drew attention to the fact that the report of the subgroup was in two parts—one on supply, the figures of which were based on the judgment of specialists, and one on requirements, which showed two levels of United States operations and one level of United Kingdom operations and also a note on Canadian needs.
There was some discussion of the figures as presented by the subgroup from which it developed as follows:
- 1.
- The fall-off in Congo production in 1949 is explained by the fact that the figures given are based upon all of the nigh grade ore in sight—subsequent to 1948 lower grade ores will have to be processed.
- 2.
- While the table of requirements shows a maximum and minimum level of operation for the United States, it shows only one level of operation for the United Kingdom. Mr. Makins explained this by saying that the United States figures represented the requirements of a continuing operation while the United Kingdom figures represented the requirements of a starting operation. In answer to a question by Mr. Wilson, Mr. Makins said that the United Kingdom figures represented the supplies required for presently authorized plans and did not include additional supplies which would be required for a diffusion plant, the installation of which was presently under consideration.
Mr. Lovett observed that it seemed to him that a sub-committee should now be authorized to examine the problem of how to reconcile supply and demand.
[Page 900]Lord Inverchapel again emphasized that the picture as presented was conservative and that in addition to the points which he had previously mentioned (hopes for more ore from the Congo and possibly other sources) there was the possibility of economy in the use of material, especially through the re-working of sludges, a field in which British scientists were conducting promising research.
It was agreed that a sub-committee should commence its work with all possible speed.
Mr. Wilson said that in his view the sub-committee in its approach to the problem of supply and demand should bear in mind:
- 1.
- That while the Congo is the principal source and that while there is always the possibility of developing new strata of high grade ore there, there is always the possibility that the mines may be played out, plus the possibility of technical or political problems arising which might retard or cut off deliveries.
- 2.
- That while the estimates of South African production represented the best judgement of the experts, uranium will be extracted there by new processes which might be expedited but which might also be delayed by unforeseeable technical difficulties.
- 3.
- As regards requirements, while one must recognize the efforts being made towards economy in the use of materials and in improved processes, these were not yet sure enough to be guaranteed by anyone.
Mr. Wilson affirmed that the statistical picture as presented by the sub-group was the “coldest” estimate of the supply situation over the period under review. He suggested that the sub-group be now given directions as to how to proceed.
Mr. Peirson recalled that 12 months ago an almost equally discouraging picture on the Congo situation, as regards high grade ores, had been presented, but at the close of the year it was found that high grade ore was, in fact, available for a further year’s mining.
Mr. Lovett observed that this was encouraging but nevertheless the committee must balance supply and consumption. He suggested that the sub-group be reconstituted to include non-technical members. He thought that this reconstituted group might receive further guidance from the C.P.C. and he asked the Secretary of Defense if he had any observations to make on this point.
Mr. Forrestal said that he was encouraged to hear that there were prospects of continuing Congo production. He, however, preferred to proceed on the basis of more pessimistic assumptions. He pointed out that as a result of the military planning of the United States, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have put demands on the Atomic Energy Commission for increased production—demands the importance of which, in his view, has been emphasized by events of the past week. He thought that nations in the East must be impressed with the true facts—policy must never outstrip power, and power must be based on fact. These were the governing considerations in United States planning. He personally [Page 901] regarded Canada and the United Kingdom as partners in the field. He thought that the joint approach of the three countries to these problems should be in this spirit. He recognized that each of the three countries has domestic problems in this regard but he expressed the hope that the partnership would have a meaning backed up by fact.
Mr. Lovett thanked the Secretary for his frank statement and suggested the naming of a further sub-group to consider the problem of materials and requirements.
It was agreed that this group would consist of:
| For the United States: | Messrs. Kennan and Wilson |
| For the United Kingdom: | Messrs. Munro and Makins |
| For Canada: | Messrs. Wrong and Stone |
V. Other Questions
(a) Standards of Security
Mr. Lilienthal drew attention to the need of having common standards of security, especially in relation to the exchange of information. He thought that this was a matter in which there was complete agreement as to intention, that no policy questions were involved and that the problem was, therefore, one of drafting.
(b) Nomenclature
Mr. Lilienthal drew attention to the desirability of changing the name of the Combined Development Trust. It was emphasized that the reasons for this were purely political and related to the Congo contracts. Several suggestions were made, e.g., the CD. Trading Organization, the CD. Traders Ltd. It was agreed that an examination of the legal position should be made, assuming that the name became the CD. Trading Organization. If no legal problems arose the change could be made forthwith.
(c) Basis of Future Cooperation
Lord Inverchapel suggested that the drafts of 1946 provided starting point for discussion. He said that on the United Kingdom side thinking was in the direction of a minute of the C.P.C., which would be confirmed by the three governments.
It was generally agreed that having a minute of the C.P.C. was a desirable approach to the problem and that a drafting sub-committee should be set up at once.
Mr. Lovett drew attention to the constitutional difficulty in the United States of determining the form of an international understanding in these matters from the point of view of executive-legislative relationships. He pointed out that it would be unfortunate if the present arrangements in respect to the old agreements had to be discussed in detail by Congress. He felt that the present situation was an unhappy one and that we should try to provide clear statements of intentions which would obviate the possibility of old misunderstandings arising again. He thought, therefore, that one paper should be [Page 902] drafted which would set out intent and purpose and that this paper should be put up to each government as a recommendation and, after approval, be incorporated in the minutes of the C.P.C.
Mr. Forrestal expressed agreement and said that the language of this paper should express intent.
Mr. Wrong raised the question of registration under Article 102.4
Mr. Lovett agreed that registration would present difficulties from the security point of view. He thought that the solution under discussion was best calculated to meet this problem.
After further discussion a drafting group was set up to consist of the following:
| United States: | Messrs. Gullion and Volpe |
| United Kingdom: | Messrs. Peirson and Maclean |
| Canada: | Messrs. Ignatieff and Stone |
(d) Requests for Assistance from certain Commonwealth Countries in the field of Technical Information
Lord Inverchapel drew the attention of the committee to requests received by the United Kingdom, particularly from Australia and New Zealand, for information and assistance in the scientific and technical field.
In reply the United States members pointed out that frank exchanges of views in the C.P.C. were only possible on the assumption that reports of the discussions were not made available to any non-C.P.C. country. They emphasized that insofar as the United States was concerned the law by which they were governed precluded such exchanges except where it was clear that they could be regarded as in the interest of the National Security of the United States. Mr. Lovett particularly pointed out that under the Atomic Energy Act consideration of common defense and National Security offered latitude for cooperation with other countries. Insofar as Canada and the United States were concerned the case seemed to be clear considering the importance of each to common defense and National Security. In this connection he referred specifically to joint continental defense planning as between the United States and Canada.
Mr. Cockroft suggested that there would be found certain areas of exchange of information with non-C.P.C. countries which might be justified within the terms indicated. Mr. Lilienthal cited as an example long range detection.
It was agreed that such cases should be discussed on their merits by appropriate technical advisers.
(e) Publicity
Lord Inverchapel suggested that the view of the United Kingdom was that there should be no publicity on the current discussions.
[Page 903]Mr. Lovett agreed insofar as any reference to the C.P.C. was concerned. He thought that some reference might be made to the existing deadlock in the U.N.A.E.C., and possibly to its effect on U.S. foreign policy in the President’s message in January to Congress on the State of the Union. He thought that the present false sense of security on the part of the public required correction. This reference, however, would not include any mention of present discussions in the C.P.C.
In answer to a question from Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Lovett said that this reference would not raise any question as to the validity of the majority plan—on the contrary, the majority plan would probably be the springboard from which it would take off, placing emphasis on the discouraging attitude of the two minority members of the Commission.
Mr. Lilienthal pointed out that present discussions of the C.P.C. would be reported fully to the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy.
As regards any statement to the public, if one should become necessary, he suggested that present discussions of the C.P.C. should be explained as a continuation of long standing cooperation which is already public knowledge.
It was agreed that the next meeting of the C.P.C. would be held on Wednesday, December 17th, at 4:00 p.m.5
Donald D. Maclean
Thomas A. Stone