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

IO Files: US(P)/A/M(Chr)/18

Minutes of the Eighteenth Meeting of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly, Hotel d’Iéna, Paris, October 19, 1948

Paris, October 19, 1948

secret

[Here follows a list of persons (35) present.]

I. Developments on Atomic Energy

Mr. Osborn stated that the Australian Delegation had introduced a new amendment¹ to the Canadian resolution on atomic energy² which modified the Canadian proposal by the addition of a paragraph calling upon the Atomic Energy Commission “to resume and continue its work, to proceed with the study of all the matters within its terms of reference, and to prepare for submission to the Security Council as early as possible a draft treaty or convention incorporating the Commission’s ultimate proposals.” He explained that it was impossible for the United States Delegation to accept this amendment under existing instructions since it required the completion of a treaty. It was his view that since the U.S.S.R. would not agree to a treaty, the result would simply be to widen the present breach. Ambassador Austin pointed out that because of its special position, the United States would be expected to come forward with a draft treaty. Mr. Osborn agreed, commenting that any treaty to which the United States could agree under present circumstances, would be so “tough” that it would certainly have little chance of winning general support.

Mr. Osborn explained that General McNaughton had now proposed a change in the Australian amendment, to which the Australians had agreed, which reversed the order of the last two paragraphs of the Australian proposal, and, most important, deleted the reference to the conclusion of a treaty. The change which McNaughton proposed was simply to call upon the Atomic Energy Commission “to resume its sessions, to review its program of work, and to proceed to the further study of such of the subjects remaining in the program of work which it considers to be practical and useful.” Mr. Osborn pointed out that the Commission might, for example, be expected to do some useful work on matters involving staffing and organization of an international control agency. Then when such studies were concluded, the situation, for lack of basic agreement, would be identical to the present one and the sponsoring powers would, under the resolution, be required to consult. While Mr. Osborn did not regard the Australian amendment as modified by Canada as altogether acceptable, there was really no alternative since it was impossible to obtain a two-thirds majority for complete suspension.

It was noted that Messrs Ramadier and Spaak both believed that the only way to assure approval of the principles of the first, second and third reports of the Atomic Energy Commission was to support this revised Canadian-Australian proposal. Mr. Osborn felt a two-thirds majority was practically insured. It was explained that this situation had been discussed with the Department by teletype last night. The Department had agreed that the United States should support this resolution and saw no possibility of its endangering American security. The United States Delegation, in supporting the resolution, should make clear its belief that there was little hope of progress in the field of atomic energy control until the U.S.S.R. altered its present policy. As a matter of fact, Mr. Osborn thought there was no alternative to acceptance of this new text since Canada, United Kingdom, Belgium and France had all deserted the United States.

Ambassador Austin commented that the position of Belgium, France and Canada on this matter had come as a surprise and was most disappointing. He had argued the United States position with representatives of these states without success. These representatives took the view that the clause in the resolution continuing the Commission was essential if a large majority were to be obtained for the principles in the three reports of the Atomic Energy Commission. This argument, together with the fact that votes were slowly slipping away from the United States position, had forced the change of position.

Mr. Cohen asked whether it would be practical to have the Canadian amendment changed slightly in order to clarify our own position. He suggested that paragraph four might be altered to read “remaining in the program of work as to which it is found that sufficient agreement exists as to make further study practical and useful.” He questioned whether the resolution got across the idea that the United States objection was not to further quiet exploration in the field of atomic energy control, but its belief and fear that the only result of the repetition of the old positions of all the members would be to make the situation and the hope of progress worse and not better. In other words, the United States considered that the Atomic Energy Commission had reached the point where further meetings would actually widen the breach qualitatively, if not quantitatively. His suggested change developed this point of view.

Mr. Dulles thought that Mr. Cohen’s amendment improved the resolution but reopened the controversy in the Committee since, although the United States believed that the existing situation made further work impossible, other states did not concur in this view. He feared that if the United States proposed such a change the Committee would be likely to get off the track a second time. As the resolution stood, it was not particularly bad, and it would be no misfortune if the present text were adopted. Mr. Osborn agreed, pointing out that consideration also should be given to the fact that the Indian-Syrian resolution³ was still before the Committee. He thought it was desirable to retain somewhat equivocal language, particularly because it might be acceptable to the Syrians. Mr. Cohen said he had not meant that the present text was unsatisfactory. He was simply trying to clarify the basis for the United States position—not that it did not want agreement but that it believed further discussions at this time would make future progress more difficult. Mr. Rusk thought Mr. Cohen’s point should be incorporated in Ambassador Austin’s speech and commented that his idea was one which the Department considered important.

Ambassador Austin thereupon stated that the Delegation was unanimously agreed upon the Australian amendment to the Canadian resolution as further modified by the Canadians.

[Here follows discussion of other subjects.]

1. For text of the Australian amendment, A/C.1/336, see memorandum of Paris–Washington teleconference, October 18, p. 479.
2. For information on Canadian resolution A/C.1/A.III/1/Rev. 3, see editorial note, p. 473.
3. Reference is to Indian proposal A/C.1/A.III/4/Rev. 2; for information on that draft, see editorial note, p. 473. This Indian proposal included the suggestion embodied in Syrian amendment A/C.1/309 (for text, see GA (III/1), First Committee, Annexes, pp. 4–5) that the Atomic Energy Commission prepare a draft treaty for international control.