Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, National Security Affairs, Foreign Economic Policy, Volume I

Department of State Atomic Energy Files

Memorandum by Mr. R. Gordon Arneson ¹ to the Secretary of State

secret

[Washington,] November 30, 1949.

Subject: United States Participation in the Future Work on International Control of Atomic Energy in the United Nations

On November 23, the General Assembly passed by a vote of 49 for, 5 against, 3 abstentions and 2 absent, a resolution sponsored by France and Canada and supported by the United States (See Tab A²). This resolution, by implication, reaffirmed the plan of control and prohibition already adopted by the General Assembly and requested the Six Permanent Members of the UNAEC (Sponsoring Powers) to continue their consultations. It is important to realize that the Sponsoring Powers have been asked to find a basis for agreement in their consultations. This differs from the task of the UNAEC, which was to develop specific proposals for control and prohibition. If a basis for agreement can be found, the UNAEC would resume its work.

During the debate, it was made known, and France and Canada formally promised, that the various proposals and suggestions which might yield some progress toward agreement, made during the General Assembly, would be given serious and objective consideration by the Six Sponsoring Powers. In the Twelfth Meeting of the Sponsoring Powers held on November 18,³ Mr. Hickerson, Chairman for that meeting, took note of the letter sent to the Six Powers by President Romulo (See Tab B⁴) and indicated the intention of the group to study it at the appropriate time. Other suggestions were made by India (See Tab C⁵) and Argentina (See Tab D⁶). These latter were submitted as resolutions and rejected by the Ad Hoc Political Committee of the General Assembly. A Soviet resolution (See Tab E⁷) was rejected overwhelmingly in both the committee and plenary. A suggestion that a U.N. mediator be appointed was made by Venezuela.⁸

The program of work envisaged for the Sponsoring Powers in searching for a basis for agreement is, therefore, as follows:

1. Continue the consultations on the list of control principles submitted by the United Kingdom⁹ which had not been completed prior to the submission of the Interim Report¹⁰ of the Sponsoring Powers. One of the items not yet fully discussed is the question of stages. (See Tab F for the Interim Report, and Tab G for the Five Power Statement on this report,¹¹ to which is appended the United Kingdom list of control principles.)

2. Examine the various proposals and suggestions made during this General Assembly; in particular, the suggestions made by President Romulo.

3. After careful study of the Soviet statements made in this General Assembly on the subject of atomic energy control in order to determine whether there had been any modification of the Soviet position, to verify the accuracy of any such interpretation in the forum of the Sponsoring Powers. In particular, Vishinsky’s statements on quotas and inspection should be probed further.

4. To determine whether, but only after consultation with the friendly powers, any modifications, elaborations or further exposition of the present plan are possible and desirable. If so, to discuss them informally in this body.

5. To consider, with the friendly powers, the advisability and desirability of coordinating the implementation of international control (stages) with the implementation of a system for the regulation and reduction of conventional armaments.

It is anticipated that the Sponsoring Powers will meet about once a fortnight.

The above program of work is extensive, complicated and requires careful and delicate handling. Above all, it requires the presence in New York of a man who is familiar with, and competent to deal with, this problem. As you know, Mr. Osborn, for personal reasons, is reluctant to continue in this work. However, I have reason to believe that he could be persuaded to continue through this next phase of our negotiations, provided he were not asked to devote full time to the work and bad a capable assistant in New York.

It is my recommendation that Mr. Frederick Osborn should be asked to continue, with Mr. John C. Ross as his assistant. I have gone over this memorandum with Mr. Hickerson and he is in full agreement.

Mr. Hickerson would, of course, continue to take part in planning our operations in the consultations as may be required, this office continuing to exercise action responsibility on this subject.

I think it important that the request that Mr. Osborn stay on as Deputy United States Representative on the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission come from you personally. If you agree with this recommendation, I could arrange for Mr. Osborn to see you at your convenience.

R. Gordon Arneson

1. Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State on atomic energy policy.
2. Supra.
3. The record of the 12th Meeting, during which discussion was confined to procedural matters, is not printed.
4. Dated November 3, p. 207.
5. For the text of the Indian proposal, A/AC.31/L.26, see GA (IV), Ad Hoc Political Committee, Annex, vol. i, p. 68.
6. The Argentine proposal, introduced at the 34th Meeting of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, November 11, requested the permanent members of the Atomic Energy Commission to secure a provisional arrangement including renunciation of the use of atomic weapons for purposes of aggression; for the text of this draft, A/AC.31/L.30, see ibid., p. 70.
7. For partial text, see footnote 6, p. 37.
8. The Venezuelan suggestion was presented at the 33rd Meeting of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, November 10; for the record of the remarks of Carlos E. Stolk, the Venezuelan Representative, at that meeting, see GA (IV), Ad Hoc Political Committee, p. 189.
9. For text, see GA (IV), Suppl. No. 15, p. 36.
10. For text, see, ibid., p. 3.
11. For text, see ibid., p. 33.