Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 1

IO Files: US(P)/A/17

Memorandum of United States–United Kingdom–Canada Staff Conversations, Ottawa, August 30–31, 1948

[Extract]

secret

September 3, 1948.

Subject: Forthcoming General Assembly

Participants:	Canada—Mr. L. B. Pearson;1 Mr. Escott Reid; Mr. Jerry Riddell; Mr. E. A. Cote; and others
	United Kingdom—Mr. Gladwyn Jebb; Mr. G. E. Boyd Shannon, United Kingdom High Commissioner’s Office
	United States—Mr. Dean Rusk, Mr. Hayden Raynor

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Atomic Energy, Disarmament and Military Staff Committee

Mr. Jebb presented the United Kingdom views tentatively outlined in Tab A.² He stated that the United Kingdom position had apparently been misunderstood during the past two or three weeks and that they had no idea whatever in Weakening in their support of the report of the Atomic Energy Commission. According to Jebb, the United Kingdom is 100% for the Atomic Energy Commision reports with publicity. Their principal interest was to demonstrate that in the fields of atomic energy, disarmament, the Military Staff Committee and the veto, that the attitude of the minority was blocking effective United Nations action, and that this constitued one of the most serious and fundamental problems confronting the United Nations. He made it clear that he was thinking of a suspension of the work of the Commission for Conventional Armaments and the Military Statff Committee on much the same grounds as the work of the Atomic Energy Commission. He envisaged an omnibus resolution covering all three points.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Rusk repeated the known Canadian and United States views, expressing concern that there be no attempt to play down the atomic energy situation.³ In order not to confuse the three questions, which presented quite different problems, the possibility of breaking an omnibus resolution up into three general sections was discussed, along with the possibility of three quite separate resolutions.

All present agreed that a minimum requirement would be to educate the Members of the Assembly on the issues raised by atomic energy control and to ensure that all delegations understood the meaning of the three reports. Mr. Rusk suggested that if it were desirable to extend the atomic energy debate into regulation of armaments and Military Staff Committee matters for the purpose of demonstrating the recalcitrant conduct of the minority, it might be well to go one step further and point to the conduct of the minority in blocking a political settlement across a broad front. He stated that it would be possible to take the initiative and force the USSR to accept the responsibility for the absence of political confidence which is prerequisite to progress in the field of the regulation of armaments.

There was general agreement that the three subjects could be kept separate in debate (for instance, a debate in three distinct parts), and possibly linked at the end of the three-phase debate in a single resolution. Pearson and ourselves pointed out certain procedural difficulties in such a plan. With respect to the wording of the draft British resolution, Jebb admitted that the British would be willing to insert stronger language than “taking note” of the atomic energy reports. There seemed to be a tendency toward a consensus that, if there should be an omnibus resolution, rather than providing for suspension on conventional armaments and on the Military Staff Committee, such a resolution could regret the lack of progress in these fields and list the reasons preventing such progress.

It was agreed that it would be important for Mr. Jebb, General McNaughton and Mr. Osborn to discuss this subject further in. Washington during the present week (this meeting has been set for Friday morning, September 3).

[Here follows discussion of another subject.]

1. Lester B. Pearson, Canadian Under Secretary of State for External Affairs; became Secretary of State for External Affairs on September 10.
2. Not printed.
3. Pearson and Rusk had discussed this question inter alia at Washington on August 20. The memorandum of that conversation indicates that Pearson made it clear that the Canadian Government favored the United States position stressing atomic energy control and opposed the British plan of combining atomic energy with the disarmament and Article 43 questions. (Department of State Disarmament Files)