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

IO Files: US(P)/A/M(Chr)/9

Minutes of the Ninth Meeting of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly, Hotel d’léna, Paris, September 30, 1948

Paris, September 30, 1948

secret

[Here follow a list of persons (32) present and discussion of various subjects.]

2. Draft Resolution on Atomic Energy

Mr. Osborn explained that, quite contrary to plans and expectations, Committee I was taking up at its meeting today, as the first item on its agenda, the question of atomic energy.¹ He had been in consultation with General McNaughton (Canada), Who Would Speak first and introduce a resolution, one result of which would be to hold the debate in the framework which the United States wished to have. The draft resolution, he explained, followed that of the vetoed Security Council resolution on this subject, and the introductory “whereas” clauses were drawn almost directly from the Third Report of the Atomic Energy Committee.² He pointed out that the objectives of the draft resolution were identical with those discussed by the Delegation previously.³

Mr. Jessup inquired whether it was still contemplated that another state should introduce the supplementary resolution calling upon permanent members to consult on this matter. Mr. Osborn said it was too soon to say, but it could probably be worked out during the debate. Mr. Cohen suggested that it might perhaps be better to incorporate it into the main resolution. Mr. Osborn indicated, however, that the majority of the States which had sat on the Atomic Energy Committee felt that it was important to make a clear statement, so far as they were concerned, that further negotiations were of no value. Mr. Cohen said he had made his proposal on the assumption that it was desirable to make the door always open, and he regarded this approach as quite important psychologically. Mr. Rusk said this question of tactics had been discussed with the National Security Council and with a special Senate committee to clarify the situation. It had been agreed that it was not appropriate for the United States to introduce a Resolution asking it and the other powers to undertake further negotiations, after which the Assembly might very well simply tell these states to go ahead and negotiate.

Mr. Dulles⁴ inquired whether consideration had been given to the idea of going ahead and drawing up a convention on atomic energy, to become effective when it was approved by a majority of states, including the five permanent members of the Security Council. Such an approach, he observed, indicated a disposition to proceed with the work. It would negate charges that the United States is calling off negotiations and starting the race for atomic energy. Mr. Osborn indicated that this approach had been discussed last year. Although several states had initially favored the preparation of such a treaty, at the present time only Syria felt that a treaty should be completed, to deal with such things as sanctions, quotas, and strategic distribution. Other states, however, feel that it would be impossible to write a comprehensive treaty without introducing into it the stages of control. The Congress and the American public would demand a treaty with strict control stages, including inspection. A treaty which would not affront the United States opinion would give the Soviets a tremendous propaganda opportunity. He believed, moreover, that it was impractical to consider action of this sort, knowing that one of the states would not accept the convention. Mr. Dulles interpreted these statements as meaning that the United States program on the control of atomic energy was so tough that it could not be proposed to the U.S.S.R. without giving them tremendous propaganda opportunities. Mr. Rusk indicated that this was a correct view. Mr. Dulles wondered whether the fourth paragraph of the resolution⁵ was necessary. It raised the question whether it was in the national interest to develop international control. Mr. Osborn said that he would discuss the deletion of this paragraph, with the British and Canadians and thought its omission could probably be agreed upon.

Mr. Gross questioned the phraseology of Paragraph 7,⁶ which he thought might introduce unnecessary controversy; Mr. Jessup thought, however, it was important for the United States to face up firmly to the Soviet propaganda, indicating that this precise language came from the AEC Third Report, and commented it would be dangerous to introduce new language into such a complex subject at the eleventh hour.

[Here follows discussion of other subjects.]

1. At its 143rd Meeting, September 29, the First Committee decided to place atomic energy first on its agenda, over the objections of the Soviet Union which desired to have its draft resolution On disarmament considered first (for text, see telegram Delga 117, September 25, p. 431). This decision was also contrary to the position of the United States and the United Kingdom who wished to have the question of Palestine considered first For the record of the meeting, see United Nations, Oficial Records of the General Assembly, Third Session, First Part, First Committee, pp. 1–12. Hereafter cited as GA (III/1), First Committee.
2. At the 144th Meeting of the First Committee, September 30, General McNaughton introduced draft resolution A/C.1/308; for text, see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Session, First Part, First Committee, Annexes, pp. 3–4. Hereafter cited as GA (III/1), First Committee, Annexes. The vital portion of the resolution, the part following the introductory clauses, was nearly identical with the draft discussed at the five power Meeting of representatives to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, July 28; for text of the latter resolution, see the record of the July 28 meeting, 369 For the record of the 144th Meeting of the First Committee, see GA (III/1), First Committee, pp. 12–21.
3. Reference is to discussion at the 8th Meeting of the Delegation, September 29; for the pertinent portion of the minutes of that meeting, see p. 432.
4. John Foster Dulles, Member of the United States Delegation; an expert on foreign policy in the Republican Party.
5. Paragraph 4 of document A/C.1/308, the Canadian resolution, read as follows:

   “Whereas only if traditional economic and political practices are adapted to the overriding requirements of international security can these proposals be implemented.”

6. Paragraph 7 read as follows:

   “Whereas the Commission now reports that it has been unable to secure the agreement of the Soviet Union to even those elements of effective control considered essential from the technical point of view, let alone their acceptance of the nature and extent of participation in the world community required of all nations in this field by the first and second reports of the Atomic Energy Commission.”