Department of State Atomic Energy Files
Memorandum of Washington–Paris Teleconference1
Conferees Present:
- [Under] Secretary Lovett
- Mr. R. Gordon Arneson
- Mr. Donald M. Leith
- Mr. William Sanders2
- Mr. Paul Taylor3
- Mr. John Elliott
SS–1. Department strongly supports opposition to Australian amendment. Department considers that Canadian compromise suffers, to a somewhat lesser extent, from the same defects as Australian. One—It is contrary to firm analysis of situation contained in Third Report. Two—It is contrary to conclusion of Third Report that work on remaining topics, would serve no useful purpose in view of impasse.
The Department believed that net effect of reconvening AEC under Canadian amendment would again result in a reaffirmation of conclusions of Third Report. But Department doubts therefore that GA should hold out the false hope that can be read into Canadian amendment. Department recommends that US should make these points in the committee before vote.
Department recognizes that political situation in UN makes it advisable play down east-west split as far as realities permit, but in view of immediately overshadowing nature Berlin situation compromise calling for futile resumption of UNAEC would not appear justify loss of strength original Canadian resolution.
Department understands need avoid impression US intent upon bringing all major UN issues vis-à-vis Soviet Union to head at this time, but Berlin and AE are only first two major issues. On these U.S. can least afford to give ground. Remaining agenda items may well afford opportunity to show UP story without foundation.
Department recommends that US take every possible measure to secure acceptance of Canadian resolution without amendment. In order to save paragraph one of Canadian resolution, voting should be done paragraph by paragraph.
If in delegation’s judgment something along lines of Canadian amendment must be accepted, suggest following wording:
“Meanwhile the GA suggests that the Commission review its program of work and, depending upon the progress made in the discussions referred to in paragraph three above, undertake such studies of the subjects remaining in its program of work as it may consider to be practical and useful.”
If Canadians accept equivalent of foregoing but Australians refuse, Department recommends urging Canadians to drop their amendment and to fight in Committee for defeat of Australian amendment and approval of original Canadian resolution.
[For] Lovett:
SS–2. Breakdown in circuits after paragraph SS–64 required sending SS–1 before completion your message. On basis of views reported [Page 484] in remainder of message, Department adds the following: If Canadians unwilling to accept our proposed wording for paragraph 4 which would follow on original Canadian paragraph 3 without Australian deletion, U.S. should accept Canadian amendment. Department sees no real possibility that Canadian amendment would endanger security interests in atomic matters particularly in view of fact that reconvened AEC would in all probability quickly conclude that no further studies were practical or useful. In voting for Canadian compromise U.S. should make unequivocally clear that it sees little hope of progress in AEC until Soviet Union accepts the majority plan of control as basis for further work and that no one has any right to the luxury of false hope until that happens.
- Affixed to the USUN copy of this memorandum is a typewritten note by Ambassador Austin which states the following: “November 2, 1948. I never saw this telegram [sic] until today.”↩
- Acting Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs.↩
- Mr. Paul B. Taylor of the Division of United Nations Political Affairs.↩
- Reference is to paragraph SS–6 of the message from Paris, supra. ↩