IO Files
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (Osborn)
François de Rose, French representative on the Atomic Energy Commission for the past two years, called to discuss the handling of atomic energy matters in the General Assembly. He said that he expected that he would be chief advisor to Mr. Ramadier,1 the French Delegate who will handle the actual debate.
[Page 430]De Rose said that he and Mr. Parodi, French Representative to the UN, saw no possible alternative to having the General Assembly vote upon a resolution approving the three Reports of the AEC. That this was the plain responsibility of the GA. He takes it for granted that the resolution will have the sponsorship of the fourteen nations who have, at one time or another, been on the majority side of the AEC. He feels that the United States must take the leading role in the discussion, particularly on the merits of the plan, though not to the exclusion of the leading roles to be played by McNaughton of Canada and the British. The basis of the debate should be approval of the First and Second Reports, from which approval of the Third Report naturally follows. He went Over the proposed draft resolution which is similar to the one discussed by the majority delegates to the AEC in New York2 and Suggests that after we have heard Vishinsky’s opening speech, those majority delegates of the AEC who are in Paris—McNaughton, Cadogan, de Rose, the Chinese and Osborn—should get together to see if they have any recommendations to make to their respective delegations on the resolution and the handling of it. De Rose feels that it would be a good idea to divide up the different delegations to the GA among a group of the sponsoring powers so that each delegation to the GA would be well informed in advance as to what the debate is about but without exerting any pressure on them as to how they will vote. He feels that the time when atomic energy should come up in Committee 1 would depend in part on the issues Vishinsky brings out in his speech. He is against reference to an Ad Hoc Committee; thinks well of Mr. Atherton’s3 suggestion that Spaak4 make an opening statement introducing the resolution.
De Rose feels strongly that arrangements should be made for the introduction of an additional resolution, or an amendment to the basic resolution should be proposed by some country not a member of the AEC in which the General Assembly would instruct the sponsoring powers to confer and report back at the next meeting of the General Assembly. He says that this proposal has been approved in the Quai d’Orsay and he feels that some positive action should be taken to see that such a resolution or amendment is introduced. He thinks it important that it should be introduced by a European nation, and suggests Norway.
De Rose was pleased to know that the British had agreed to debate atomic energy first, and I gather that he does not think well of the British plan of having a general discussion of all disarmament questions.
[Page 431]The French government has arranged to print a considerable number of pamphlets containing the plan proposed by the Commission and some related matters, in general similar to the pamphlets we had printed in the U.S. and brought over here for distribution. The French edition should be ready next week.
- Paul Ramadier, Frenen Minister of National Defense and Member of the French Delegation.↩
- For text of the resolution considered in New York by Delegations supporting the majority position regarding the work of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, see record of the meeting of July 28, p. 369.↩
- Ray Atherton, Alternate Member of the United States Delegation.↩
- Paul-Henri Spaak, Belgian Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs; Chairman of the Belgian Delegation; Chairman of the First Committee of the General Assembly (Political and Security Questions).↩