Department of State Disarmament Files
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Deputy United States Representative to the Commission for Conventional Armaments (Nash)
US/S/C.3/14
Subject: Implementation by the Commission for Conventional Armaments of the General Assembly Resolution of November 19, 1948, on Census and Verification.
| Participants: | General McNaughton, Mr. Starnes; Canadian Delegation. |
| Baron de la Tournelle, Colonel Penette, Major Fournier; French Delegation. | |
| Sir Terence Shone, Mr. Cole, Mr. Laskey,1 Major Baker-Baker, Wing Commander Warne; United Kingdom Delegation. | |
| Colonel Townsley; U.S. Military Staff Committee. | |
| Mr. Leith; Division of International Security Affairs. | |
| Mr. Russell, Mr. Nash; United States Mission. |
A meeting was held at the United States Mission on April 27 to consider the subject stated above.
[Page 51]Mr. Nash opened the meeting by reviewing the status of negotiations among the four Delegations respecting implementation of the GA Resolution of November 19. He pointed out that this was the first meeting of the four Delegations since his tenure of office began. He recalled that a U.S. paper setting forth the views of his government as to the nature of the proposal to be introduced into the Commission for Conventional Armaments had been distributed to the other Delegations for their comments. This meeting was called to receive those comments and to discuss the proper manner of handling such a paper in the CCA. He pointed out that the French Delegation had agreed to introduce a paper along the lines of the U.S. paper into the CCA in order to initiate concrete discussion in the Working Committee. He stated that he hoped the other Delegations had received the official comments of their governments on the U.S. paper in question.
Sir Terence Shone stated that while he had not yet received the full comments of the Foreign Office, he had a telegram embodying some preliminary views on the latest U.S. paper. The most important comment contained in the telegram was to the effect that the U.S. paper did not seem sufficiently detailed for introduction into the Working Committee. This was interpreted to mean that considerably more technical details would need to be added.
Mr. Nash replied that it was the U.S. view that the initial paper did not need to be more detailed than the proposed U.S. paper but that the place for the discussion of details would be in the technical sub-committees.
Sir Terence Shone again stressed the United Kingdom view that the U.K. did not wish too detailed a breakdown of the information to be reported. For example, it did not want to give components of overseas forces, nor details respecting geographic location—for instance, how many troops were stationed in Gibraltar or in Egypt. There was also a question as to the U.S. proposal for a breakdown of information on “numbers maintained for (a) national defense, (b) occupation and other international commitments, (c) internal security.”
Mr. Nash replied that while the U.S. was prepared to go farther than the British apparently were in these respects, the matter was still open for more detailed discussion.
Sir Terence Shone stated that the Foreign Office felt that a detailed statement respecting organization would be needed.
Mr. Nash said that such a statement was being prepared in his government.
Sir Terence Shone added that the Foreign Office approved the idea of getting up a sub-committee of the Working Committee for drafting of papers. He reiterated U.K. approval for introduction into the CCA by the French Delegation of a paper representing the agreed views [Page 52] of the majority. He stated that the full views of the Foreign Office on the U.S. draft would be received within a month.
After Mr. Nash raised the question of the urgency of action on a paper for the CCA, Sir Terence Shone revised his estimate and stated his belief that the U.K. comments might be in hand within ten days.
General McNaughton stated his view that there might need to be several ad hoc sub-committees to deal with technical questions. He also emphasized the importance of developing a Commission plan rather than a U.S., French or Canadian plan in the Commission, He stated, however, that his government approved the idea of the French introducing an initial draft as a basis for starting the general discussion in the Working Committee. The common Commission draft would emerge in the course of events from the work of the sub-committees.
General McNaughton indicated that the Canadian Chiefs of Staff had accepted the U.S. paper as a basis for discussion but that this action had not as yet been confirmed by written instructions from his government. He said that a telephone conversation the morning of the meeting had indicated, nevertheless, that his government saw eye to eye with the U.S. in matters of personnel. They would have some detailed comments on equipment but this would not affect the agreement upon general principles. He believed that there should be no military experts at the Working Committee level but that such experts should be called in in connection with the work of the sub-committees.
Baron de la Tournelle stated that his government had approved the U.S. paper as constituting a basic outline of the paper to be introduced into the Working Committee. The French Government had left it to the French Mission in New York to fill in the details. Pursuant to such instructions, the Mission had developed a working paper2 for consideration by the other three Delegations.
Since the French paper had only been received a few minutes before the meeting was called and since it had not been translated, the three Delegations had not had the opportunity to consider it. For this reason Major Fournier was called on to summarize the paper and to state wherein it differed from the U.S. paper. Major Fournier stated that the French paper was practically identical with the U.S. paper except for one item. This item had to do with a French proposal for including both figures on manpower in industries producing conventional [Page 53] armaments as well as figures indicating the production of war materiels and of certain finished products.
Mr. Nash said that he was glad the French were apparently able to develop a paper so closely in line with the U.S. paper but that he thought the French proposal on manpower in industries producing conventional armaments and statistics on industrial potential a dangerous one.
General McNaughton strongly stated his agreement with Mr. Nash’s objection to the French proposal and added that he considered it both unwise and impractical. He emphasized the importance of keeping to a census of the Military Establishment only, especially in view of the necessity for verification. He pointed out that there were few aspects in the life of a nation which would not be directly or indirectly involved in the production of armaments. He did not believe it desirable or politically feasible to have the industrial life of a country subjected to such inspection, especially in view of the limited nature of the proposed census.
Mr. Nash referred to some of the technical difficulties involved in attempting inspection on such a scale and pointed out how many peacetime industries could easily be converted to war uses.
General McNaughton stated his belief that the Soviet Union would receive such a proposal with great suspicion.
Sir Terence Shone agreed with the above views on this question.
General McNaughton again emphasized the importance of confining the work to be undertaken to levels of the armed forces and conventional armaments possessed by each nation.
It was agreed that each Delegation would transmit to Baron de la Tournelle at the earliest opportunity its comments on the French paper, and that after these had been received, Baron de la Tournelle would draft a paper taking into account the views of the four Delegations. A meeting of these Delegations would then be called with a view to examining the new paper in the necessary detail. If the paper was satisfactory to all, it could be presented to the Working Committee very soon thereafter. The target date for the next Working Committee meeting was the middle of May. It was believed that the military experts would be called in by the last week in May for work in connection with a sub-committee or sub-committees. Such a schedule was thought to be reasonable in view of the fact that the French had stated that their paper differed little from the U.S. paper with the one exception noted above.