Department of State Disarmament Files
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Executive Secretary of the Executive Committee on Regulation of Armaments (Shooshan)
US/S/C.3/17
Subject: Implementation by the Commission for Conventional Armaments of the General Assembly Resolution of November 19, 1948, on Census and Verification
| Participants: | Baron de la Tournelle, Colonel Penette, Major Fournier; French Delegation |
| Colonel Townsley, United States Military Staff Committee | |
| Mr. Nash, Mr. Russell; United States Mission | |
| Mr. Shooshan; Division of International Security Affairs |
Baron de la Tournelle asked Mr. Nash what the views of the United States were on the French draft paper1 circulated at the Four Delegation meeting of April 27, 1949, and offered the preliminary comment that he did not visualize any problem in getting together and proceeding with a commonly accepted paper.
Mr. Nash stated that the French draft paper raised several questions of substance and appeared to be so general as to lead the United States to the conclusion that the paper would not prove adequate as a basis for a final proposal to be introduced into the Working Committee of the CCA.
Mr. Nash explained that since he had received the French draft paper just prior to the meeting of April 27, there had been no opportunity to obtain a full translation of it until after the meeting. With reference to the one point of difference mentioned by the French at the meeting of April 27, he pointed out that, as indicated at that meeting, the United States regarded the inclusion of industrial potential in the census and verification proposals as going well beyond the General Assembly resolution of November 19, 1948, which applied to “armaments” and “effectives” alone. He pointed out further that the inclusion of industrial capacity in the census and verification measures opened up a wide variety of collateral fields which did not properly belong within the scope of the measures under discussion.
Baron de la Tournelle readily agreed to the deletion of the inclusion of industrial potential.
Mr. Nash pointed out further that there was a very fundamental difference reflected in the French paper in not emphasizing the importance of adequate verification as stressed by the United States [Page 55] paper. The insistence in the French paper on avoiding any disclosure of geographic distribution of armed forces and armaments represented a departure from United States thinking. He pointed out that it was largely from the verification process itself that greatest progress would be made in the restoration of international confidence rather than from the information to be produced by the census. He said that the French draft appeared to confine verification to central records of “a public nature”, excluding any classified source of information and that such sources were not adequate in the United States view. Mr. Nash also said that the French draft paper was deficient in not providing for “spot checks” of the nature anticipated in the United States paper. Mr. Nash stated that it was the view of the United States that in the interest of adequate verification all nations must be prepared to make available records which would make verification effective and meaningful and that such sources must as a by-product reveal a certain degree of breakdown of armed forces beyond any indicated in the French draft paper. He said that the United States was prepared to subscribe to such a breakdown in the interest of assuring realistic and purposeful verification. He pointed out that in the United States view it is through the cross-checking of information that adequate verification can best be achieved. He explained that the actual verification process would undoubtedly vary from country to country and that in most cases the use of central records alone would undoubtedly accomplish the necessary results. He observed that in some cases it might, however, be necessary for the inspectorate to use one or more of the types of cross-records indicated in the United States paper in order adequately to verify reported information, if it should be so determined by the organ which would supervise the execution of the census and verification measures. For this reason he stated the governing basic understanding on the subject must be sufficiently comprehensive to allow for the necessary flexibility in order to assure adequate verification.
Colonel Penette explained that experience in the use of “spot checks” did not impress him with their value unless, in the case of personnel, an across-the-board disclosure was made of the geographic distribution of armed forces and armaments which would be spot-checked for purposes of verifying the information reported. He pointed out that in the absence of an across-the-board disclosure, the spot check was without meaning and encouraged evasion.
Mr. Nash replied that so far as the United States was concerned it was prepared to give the across-the-board information described by Colonel Penette if all others would so agree in the interest of providing for adequate verification. Colonel Penette said he did not think the French Government would be so prepared.
[Page 56]Mr. Nash then explained further that in the United States paper the concept of spot checking was viewed as a sampling device to provide one more source of information which could be pieced together with other information in order to supply necessary verification. He illustrated the point further by saying that it was much in the nature of a random check of products on a production assembly line. He recognized certain deficiencies in his illustration when applied to the present subject but said that the United States regarded spot checks as potentially meaningful when concerted with other information to be verified. The United States regarded the actual product of the census itself as not giving information with real precision, and that it was in the verification process that progress in the restoration of confidence would be demonstrated. Similarly Mr. Nash indicated that since the object of the General Assembly resolution was to provide a very limited step forward in the implementation of Article 26 that too rigid a census and verification system should not be sought in the absence of wider areas of agreement to be developed in further CCA consideration of its plan of work. Mr. Nash re-emphasized that the measures proposed in the Working Committee should be as comprehensive as they were realistic, given existing political realities, in the hope that all members of CCA might accept them or make clear why they could not do so.
Baron de la Tournelle suggested that military representatives of the various Delegations might get together in order to discuss further such matters as “spot checks” and “geographic distribution” in order to clear the ground and to provide for a further exchange of views of the four Delegations.
Mr. Nash suggested, alternatively, that in order to permit the further exchange of views of the respective governments and to promote mutual understanding of the United States paper that it might be helpful to continue discussions of the various points raised among the representatives of the four Delegations. Mr. Nash stated further that there were basic principles involved in the United States paper, some of which had already been discussed and would lend themselves to further discussion, and others which had only briefly been touched upon. He pointed out that it might be helpful to all concerned if there could be further discussion of the United States paper as a whole by the four Delegations and that there was perhaps value in doing this even though all had not heard finally from their respective governments. Baron de la Tournelle agreed with Mr. Nash’s suggestion and offered to meet with the other Delegations either on May 11 or 13, concluding that he still did not anticipate any real problem in arriving at a commonly accepted paper.
[Page 57]Mr. Nash left a copy, on an informal basis, of a United States memorandum2 reflecting United States views on the French paper with Baron de la Tournelle for his information.