IO Files
United States Delegation Memorandum
Reports of the Atomic Energy Commission: Report of the First Committee1
1. United States Position
The United States Delegation should vote in favor of the Canadian Resolution2 which received a more than two-thirds vote in Committee 1. If the Syrian Resolution3 is introduced in the Plenary, the United States should of course vote against it.
It is desirable for the United States Delegation to open the debate on this subject. The Canadian, French and British Delegations all feel it is necessary we should open the debate. If Vishinsky makes a violent speech, the British will probably reply. Ambassador Austin’s name has been put down to speak first.
2. History in Committee
The Canadian Resolution was introduced by the Canadian Delegate immediately upon the opening of debate in Committee 1. It approved the pertinent parts of the First and Second Reports and the Recommendations of the Third Report. There was no provision for continuing the Atomic Energy Commission unless a basis were found for doing so by the General Assembly or the sponsoring powers.
Amendments were introduced by Syria, instructing the Atomic Energy Commission to meet and complete the treaty; by India4 and by Australia,5 each instructing the Atomic Energy Commission to meet, and each with the implication that it should complete a treaty.
The United States Delegate in a first and unprepared speech indicated that the United States was willing to accept a compromise. The amendments, particularly that of Australia, began to be very favorably received. Over night the Canadian Delegate, General McNaughton, arranged with Colonel Hodgson of Australia for the modification of the Australian amendment in a more acceptable form. The United States Delegation felt this was necessary in order to get a two-thirds majority for approval. Telegraphic approval was received from the State Department. The amendment was offered in the next meeting and [Page 495] the whole matter referred to sub-committee. After a number of meetings the sub-committee reported out two resolutions, namely, the Canadian resolution as amended by the modified Australian amendment by a vote of 8 in favor and 2 against and one abstention and the Soviet resolution6 by a vote of 2 in favor, 7 against and two abstentions. The sub-committee reported to Committee 1 which, after debate, approved the Canadian resolution by a vote of 41 to 6, with 10 abstentions.
3. Possible Developments in the Plenary Meeting
It is probable that Mr. el Khouri of Syria will reintroduce his resolution or amendment calling for the completion of a treaty by the Atomic Energy Commission. This will fail to gain a majority. It is possible that Mr. el Khouri will then vote for the Canadian resolution. There has been anxiety that the Indian Delegation would again move their resolution. They are particularly anxious that the Reports of the Commission should be approved “in substance” or “in principle.” It is hoped that they will settle for a statement before they vote, to the effect that their approval is contingent not only on completion of the whole treaty but on the approval of the detailed elaboration of what is already written. No trouble is expected from Australia except for the wholly unpredictable nature of Mr. Evatt’s leadership. It is hoped that in the Plenary several nations who have abstained in Committee 1 will vote in favor, especially Ecuador, Argentina, El Salvador. South Africa, Venezuela and Yemen are doubtful.
- For text of the report, document A/690, see GA (III/1), Annexes, vol. i, pp. 270–275.↩
- The Canadian resolution, document A/C.1/340, is printed infra. ↩
- For text of the Syrian amendment, A/C.1/309, see GA (III/1), First Committee, Annexes, pp. 4–5.↩
- Indian proposal A/C.1/A.III/4/Rev. 2 is described in editorial note, p. 473.↩
- For text of the Australian amendment, see memorandum of Paris–Washington teleconference, October 18, p. 482.↩
- For text of the Soviet draft resolution, A/C.1/310, see footnote 1, p. 445.↩