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 the Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (Osborn)

secret

[New York,] March 10, 1949.

A meeting of consultants to the U.S. Representative on the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission was held in New York at 3:30 p. m. March 8, 1949, in the offices of the U.S. Mission.¹

The following were present:

• President Conant²
• Dr. Oppenheimer³
• General Groves⁴
• Dr. Bacher⁵
• General Nichols⁶
• General Farrell⁷
• Mr. Chester Barnard⁸
• Dr. Vance⁹

Also, Mr. Osborn, Mr. Russell, Mr. Chase and Mr. Arneson.

Five questions were put on the agenda, and for almost two hours there was an active discussion in which Messrs. Osborn, Arneson, Russell and Chase took no part. Mr. Osborn then read aloud the summary he had made of the answers to each of the questions on the agenda. The consultants, without exception, stated that the summary read to them represented their unanimous views in answer to the questions asked.

The questions asked in the agenda and the answers of the consultants were as follows:

Question 1: In the past three years has new information of a technical or scientific nature developed which indicates a change in the technical basis of the recommendations of the Commission?

Answer: Scientific base not changed. Technical basis, such as stocks of materials, greatly changed. Political situation altogether changed.

Question 2: Under the terms of the General Assembly Resolution of November 4, 1948, (see page 35 of the Appendix¹⁰) calling upon the Atomic Energy Commission “to survey its program of work and to proceed with the further study of such of its subjects remaining in the program of work as it considers to be practicable and useful,” what, if any, further work is considered practicable and useful?

Answer: None. The less we say, the better. The more we appear to stop discussions, the worse, but we may have to. End up on same conclusions as those of the Third Report, but stronger and better documented, and more sharply focused on questions of access and openness.

Question 3: What should be discussed when the sponsoring powers meet, and at what level should the consultations take place?

Answer: Level not determined. Content, same as Fourth Report of AEC, plus recognition of added stocks, of power development being more in the future, and political situation being much worse. A definite declaration along these lines should be made at least by the U.K., Canada and the U.S. There should possibly be a supplemental declaration by the United States going further, and indicating that negotiations when reopened will have to be taken up on a basis which takes into account changes due to the passage of time.

Question 4: Should the survey of the program of work by the Atomic Energy Commission and the consultation of the sponsoring powers called for in the General Assembly resolution take place concurrently, or should one follow the other, and if the latter, which should take first place?

Answer: AEC first, to completion of Report. Sponsoring powers should consult in time to report to the General Assembly.

Question 5: What should be the purpose of the reports to be made by the Commission and by the sponsoring powers to the next regular session of the General Assembly?

Answer: Get us completely out of an impossible situation.

Remarks (unanimous): Dangerous to move so slowly on this.

Frederick Osborn

1. This meeting was discussed by Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, a participant, and the Secretary of State on March 17 in Washington; for information regarding the Acheson-Oppenheimer discussion, see the memorandum by R. Gordon Arneson, March 17, p. 461.
2. Dr. James B. Conant, President of Harvard University; Member of the General Advisory Committee of the United States Atomic Energy Commission.
3. Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, Chairman of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey; Chairman of the General Advisory Committee of the United States Atomic Energy Commission; Director of Los Alamos Laboratories of Manhattan Engineer District (the atomic weapons development program), 1943–1945.
4. Lt. Gen. (ret.) Leslie R. Groves, Vice President in charge of advanced scientific research, Remington Rand Inc.; Commanding General, Manhattan Engineer District, 1943–1945.
5. Dr. Robert F. Bacher, Member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission.
6. Maj. Gen. Kenneth D. Nichols, Member of the Military Liaison Committee to the United States Atomic Energy Commission.
7. Maj. Gen. (ret.) Thomas F. Farrell, Deputy Commander of Manhattan Engineer District, 1943–1945; Member of the United States Delegation to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, 1946.
8. Chester I. Barnard, President of the Rockefeller Foundation; Member of the Board of Consultants of the Secretary of State’s Committee on Atomic Energy, 1946.
9. Dr. John E. Vance, Chairman of the Department of Chemistry, Yale University.
10. Appendix not printed.