Department of State Disarmament Files
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Harry M. Shooshan, Jr., of the Division of International Security Affairs
US/S/C.3/20
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, Major Pierce-Goulding; Canadian Delegation. |
| Baron de la Tournelle, Colonel Penette, Major Fournier; French Delegation. | |
| Sir Terence Shone, Mr. Cole, Wing Commander Warne; United Kingdom Delegation. | |
| Mr. Nash, Mr. Russell; United States Mission. | |
| Colonel Townsley; U.S. Military Staff Committee. | |
| Mr. Shooshan; Division of International Security Affairs. |
A meeting was held at the U.S. Mission to discuss a draft working paper prepared by representatives of the French Delegation in collaboration with the U.S. Mission.1
Sir Terence Shone stated that the U.K. Delegation had received preliminary instructions from London on the U.S. paper. He stated that the Foreign Office was in agreement with the U.S. position but that the Services had raised several points as to details of which those raised by the Admiralty were most important in nature. He said that a technical committee of the British Disarmament Committee is studying the entire proposal further. He observed, however, that regarding the fundamental issue of “adequate verification”, all parties were in accord. Illustrative of the type of objection raised by the Admiralty was that any verification of combatant ships might disclose specific fleet dispositions. He visualized that the points raised were largely technical in nature which could probably be taken care of in the Working Committee.
Mr. Nash stated that the intent of the draft paper under discussion, which would be introduced by the French into the Working Committee, was merely to initiate discussion of basic principles out of which the various details might be developed as to which any of the governments could expand their positions. General McNaughton agreed with this observation.
Regarding the views of the Canadian Chiefs of Staff previously circulated among the representatives present,2 Baron de la Tournelle [Page 62] observed that the proposal of “stages” of census and verification, taking effectives first and materiel second, suggested by the Canadian Chiefs of Staff, raised a problem from a political point of view which, as expressly recognized by the Canadian Chiefs of Staff, would probably be unacceptable to the Soviet Union in that it might be viewed by them as an attempt to obtain prior information on the principal item of Soviet military strength, viz. manpower.
General McNaughton observed that the staging suggested might work both ways and that since presumably the Russians were relatively weak on materiel, they might react favorably to its being included at a later stage. However, General McNaughton stated that he was agreeable to passing over the point for the time being and expressed the belief that the views expressed by the other governments on the subject would probably help the Canadian Department of External Affairs to alter the views of the Canadian Chiefs of Staff on the point.
Mr. Cole asked if transport aircraft would be included in the census and if component assemblies of aircraft would be included. General McNaughton replied that transport aircraft should not be included and Mr. Nash stated that it was not in the original U.S. proposal to include any civil or transport aircraft, although the U.S. would be willing to include them if the others thought it desirable. General McNaughton stated that, with reference to component assemblies, they should be included and that provision therefore should be developed in the Working Committee.
Extended discussion took place regarding the time when the census and verification proposals would be implemented and, in answer to the suggestion that the proposal become effective upon acceptance of all Member States having a population of over 5 million, General McNaughton replied that the big powers were covered in the present draft proposal and that the two-thirds majority also covered in the present proposal was the more customary way of implementing international agreements. In this connection, Baron de la Tournelle stated that in response to a question asked by him in the First Committee at Paris last fall, the Soviet representative had stated that in reporting on armaments and effectives, the Soviet Union would include the Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR. General McNaughton pointed out that it would be helpful to obtain a repetition of this statement for the record of the Working Committee of the CCA.
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to an extensive consideration of the draft French–U.S. paper and a modification of the paper was accepted by all present for introduction by the French in a [Page 63] meeting of the Working Committee which it was agreed would be sought for sometime during the ensuing week.3
- The draft working paper is not printed.↩
- General McNaughton transmitted the views of the Canadian Chiefs of Staff to Nash in a letter of May 16, not printed.↩
-
The French Delegation introduced the agreed working paper at the 21st Meeting of the Working Committee, May 26, as document S/C.3/SC.3/21; for text, see Sections I and II of the Report of the Commission for Conventional Armaments to the Security Council (S/1372), August 9, pp. 107 and 109.
The Working Committee considered the French proposal at its 21st–25th Meetings, May 26–July 18. In telegram 319 to New York, June 16, the Department of State informed the United States Mission that the working paper fell within the framework of the approved United States position and should serve adequately as a basis for discussion (501.BC Armaments/6–1649).
↩