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

Department of State Atomic Energy Files

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Charles H. Russell, Adviser, United States Mission at the United Nations

confidential

[New York,] March 4, 1949.

US/AEC/28

Participants:	General McNaughton, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Starnes—Canadian Delegation
	Dr. Wei—Chinese Delegation
	M. de Rose—French Delegation
	Mr. Sunde,1 Mr. Lunde,2 Mr. Nord—Norwegian Delegation
	Sir Terence Shone, Mr. Falla, Mr. Cole—United Kingdom Delegation
	Mr. Osborn, Mr. Russell—United States Mission

A meeting was held this morning at the United Kingdom Delegation. Sir Terence Shone is Chairman of the UNAEC this month.

I.

(a) Draft Secretariat Paper (I)3	}	Question of whether these papers need to be amended.
(b) Draft Secretariat Paper (II)3

II. Procedure for dealing with Draft Secretariat Papers.

The meeting discussed the implementation of the resolution adopted by the commission on February 18 (AEC/35).⁴ The outline of the working papers prepared by the Secretariat and a paper submitted by Mr. Osborn, entitled “Recommendations of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission Approved by the General Assembly as Constituting the Necessary Basis for Establishing an Effective System of International Control of Atomic Energy to Ensure its Use Only for Peaceful Purposes and for the Elimination from National Armaments of Atomic Weapons”,⁵ were discussed at length. It was agreed that the material described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the resolution could safely be assembled by the Secretariat.

At its 20th Meeting, March 22, the UNAEC adopted a United States proposal that the preliminary drafts prepared by the Secretariat pursuant to resolution AEC/35 be transmitted to the Working Committee for consideration. The vote was nine to two, the Soviet and Ukrainian Representatives voting against the proposal. For the record of the 20th Meeting, see AEC, 4th yr., No. 4.

In regard to paragraph 1, General McNaughton was not in favor either of appointing an editorial committee, as had been suggested by Sir Terence Shone, or of having the U.S.S.R. represented. He thought that in regard to paragraph 1, the Secretariat should have a clear directive from the majority.

Mr. Osborn thought that his paper conformed completely to the requirements of paragraph 1 of the resolution and that the draft of the Secretariat was inadequate in omitting such headings as “Prohibition” and “Stages”.

Dr. Wei thought that Mr. Osborn’s paper was to be preferred to that of the Secretariat. M. de Rose had certain comments on Mr. Osborn’s paper which he and Mr. Osborn agreed to discuss further together.

It was decided that in view of the fact that the Secretariat had asked for comments and suggestions on their draft before March 3 and had been informed that further time would be required, General McNaughton, as the sponsor of the resolution, would prepare a letter to the Secretariat, on behalf of the majority delegations, which would request the Secretariat to proceed with the preparation of paragraphs 2 and 3 and which would contain the views of the majority on the preparation of paragraph 1; that this letter would not be handed to the Secretariat until after the meeting of the Commission on March 8; and that all the majority delegations would have an opportunity to examine and discuss the text before the letter was signed.

III. Procedure for dealing with Draft Soviet Resolution⁶

Mr. Osborn pointed out that the U.S.S.R. was attacking not what was proposed under the majority plan, but the methods of the plan. They were attacking those provisions of the proposed treaty which would make a treaty effective. He felt that the United States could not weaken in considering other methods of making the treaty effective and he was unwilling to compromise. The U.S.S.R. resolution was basically an attack on such methods as “stages”. He was not interested in weakening the methods, which were none too strong, and would abstain if a motion were offered to refer the Soviet resolution (AEC/37) to a committee.

M. de Rose agreed that there could be no weakening of the methods of control which the majority had insisted upon, but he felt that it was essential that the Commission should be in a position to make a strong case in the Fourth General Assembly. He urged that the Commission submit sufficient material to the Fourth General Assembly to show:

(a) that the Commission had proceeded as far as it could, and,

(b) that the U.S.S.R. would not “play ball”.

M. de Rose suggested that the majority ask the U.S.S.R. how the latter proposed to go forward. He thought that a very few meetings would be required to dispose of their proposals, and that while such a procedure would be on a negative basis, it would nevertheless take some of the wind out of Mr. Vyshinsky’s sails next autumn. He expressed the view that if the United States did not participate in these discussions, the U.S.S.R. would make the most of it, and he concluded by saying that if the United States would not take part he would be obliged to reconsider his recommendation, made at the meeting of the Commission on February 25, that the Soviet resolution be referred to a committee.

Mr. Osborn said that he had been impressed by M. de Rose’s statement and would be prepared to reconsider his earlier remarks in so far as they related to the transmission of the U.S.S.R. resolution to the Working Committee.

Sir Terence Shone said that it would be better to deal with the Soviet resolution in the Working Committee than in the Commission.

General McNaughton quoted from a telegram⁷ which he had sent to his government in which he expressed the view that the discussions in the Commission should:

(a) clarify the majority position, and

(b) show the defects in the minority proposals.

He regarded it as important, to carry public opinion, that these proposals should discussed, and he agreed that such discussion should take place in a committee and not in the Commission. Mr. Osborn agreed. General McNaughton again emphasized the importance of examining the Soviet proposals to make the position of the majority clear to the world.

M. de Rose raised the question of U.S.S.R. prestige and suggested that the Soviet proposals be considered in the Working Committee rather than in Committee 2,⁸ and that, in due course, the discussion of the implementation of the Canadian resolution (AEC/35), be referred to Committee 2.

It was agreed that if the Soviet representative should ask for a vote on his resolution, the majority would abstain.

IV. Procedure for dealing with General Assembly Resolution and question of implementing paragraph 4 of that Resolution.^*

Little time was left for the discussion of the last item of the agenda. It was pointed out that the completion of the working papers would be of value to the delegates in considering the implementation of paragraph 4 of the General Assembly resolution of November 4, 1948.

It was hoped that representatives of the majority would meet again next week.

C. H. Russell

1. Arne Sunde, Norwegian Representative to the Atomic Energy Commission and the Commission for Conventional Armaments.
2. Ivar Lunde, Alternate Norwegian Representative to the Atomic Energy Commission and the Commission for Conventional Armaments.
3. Not printed.
3. Not printed.
4. On February 18, the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission convened (for its 17th Meeting) in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 191(III) (for text, see Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. i, Part 1, p. 495). At that meeting, the Commission approved a Canadian resolution (adopted as AEC/35) which requested the Secretariat to prepare the following documents: 1) a working paper setting out the recommendations on atomic energy control approved by the Third Session of the General Assembly, 2) a comparative table showing the positions of the majority and the minority in the Commission on the topics discussed, 3) an index to the reports and proceedings of the UNAEC and its committees and the General Assembly and its committees on the subject of atomic energy. The resolution was adopted unanimously with the exception that the Soviet Union and the Ukraine abstained on the preamble and paragraph 1. For the text of the resolution, see United Nations, Official Records of the Atomic Energy Commission, Fourth Year, No. 1, pp. 4–5 (hereafter cited as AEC, 4th yr., No. 1).
5. Not printed.
6. At the 18th Meeting of the Atomic Energy Commission, February 25, the Soviet Union introduced a resolution (ABC/37) which read in operative part as follows: [The Atomic Energy Commission resolves] “1. To begin immediately the preparation of a draft convention for the prohibition of atomic weapons and a draft convention for the control of atomic energy, proceeding from the principle that both conventions must be concluded and put into effect simultaneously;

   “2. To submit the draft conventions mentioned in the preceding paragraph to the Security Council not later than 1 June 1949.”

   For full text, see AEC, 4th yr., No. 2, p. 8.

7. Not found in the files of the Department of State.
8. At its Third Meeting, June 25, 1946, the UNAEC established a Working Committee of the whole to consider all proposals which had been made to the Commission and to appoint such other committees as seemed necessary. Committee 2, created by the Working Committee on July 12, 1946, functioned essentially as a sub-committee possessing broad terms of reference.
9. “Calls upon the A.E.C. to resume its sessions, to survey its programme of work, and to proceed to the further study of such of the subjects remaining in the programme of work as it considers to be practicable and useful.” [Footnote in the source text.]