Department of State Disarmament Files
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission ( Osborn )
US/AEC/34
Subject: Plans of the Majority Delegates to the Atomic Energy Commission
| Participants: | General McNaughton, Mr. Ignatieff; Canadian Delegation |
| Mr. J. W. Holmes, Chief of the United Nations Division of the Canadian Department of External Affairs | |
| Dr. Wei; Chinese Delegation | |
| M. Pierre-Benoist, French Delegation | |
| Sir Terence Shone, Mr. Laskey, United Kingdom Delegation | |
| Mr. Osborn, United States Mission |
After the meeting of the Working Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission on June 15,1 the representatives of the delegations mentioned above met at the house of Sir Terence Shone at Great Neck for luncheon to discuss further plans.
1. Meetings of the Atomic Energy Commission.
It was agreed that since the Working Committee has completed its work and reported its position pretty clearly to the Commission, it would be advisable not to have any meeting of the Commission until after the 4th of July holiday, when the Chinese will be in the chair. It was not decided whether such a meeting should be held before, during, or after the consultations of the Sponsoring Powers.
If the Commission meeting is held early in July prior to the meeting of the sponsoring Powers, General McNaughton desires to make a statement, which he has already prepared, showing that the First Report differs from the original Baruch proposals2 and that the Second Report differs from both and is in effect a new plan. Therefore, the Soviet talk about the “Baruch Plan” or the “American Plan” is either propaganda or shows a complete misapprehension of the approved recommendations. If such a meeting were held, Mr. Osborn would also propose to make a statement about “simultaneity”, indicating that in the approved plan the putting into effect of each prohibition and of the particular control relating to the prohibition would be “simultaneity” in the true sense, whereas the Soviet proposal does not provide true simultaneity. If a meeting of the Commission were held during the consultations it would be for the purpose of bringing out some of the points of which the public should be advised.
Finally, if a meeting of the Commission is held after the consultations, it will be for the purpose of expressing the conclusions of the Commission in the light of all the facts. In this connection, Mr. Osborn presented a draft of a resolution, copy of which is attached,3 which might be used by the Commission to close up its work instead of the Commission’s making a Fourth Report.
All those present were agreed that such a resolution would be better than a Fourth Report and that the draft shown them pretty closely approximated the content they thought it should have.
2. Consultations of the Sponsoring Powers.
General McNaughton said that he had taken up with his Foreign Office last week Mr. Osborn’s letter referring to the preliminary reaction of the United States State Department to the plans for the [Page 68] consultations. He said that his Foreign Office entirely agreed with the State Department about not introducing the statement of principles in the earlier meetings and about having the Secretary-General call the meeting.
France, the United Kingdom and China have sent the material on the consultations (US/AEC/334), including the preliminary advice of our State Department, to their governments but do not expect to hear from them for ten days and cannot promise to define their position until the first of July.
It was agreed that a meeting of the delegations of the majority Sponsoring Powers should be called just as soon as France and the United Kingdom have heard from their governments. Dr. Wei said that he would be ready when they were.
Both Mr. Osborn and General McNaughton said that they would have some changes to suggest in the statement of principles, which should be agreed upon in advance against its possible use at the end of the consultations.
Dr. Wei pointed out that while the resolution of the General Assembly of November 4, 1948, might be sufficient for the agenda, we should work out some plans for the discussion and how it was to take place. It was agreed that there would have to be a Chairman, probably in rotation, as provided at the first meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers. It was agreed that there should be some form or order of discussion. All agreed that the basic discussion should center on cooperative international ownership of dangerous materials and international operation and management of dangerous facilities, as proposed in the approved plan, versus national ownership of dangerous materials and national operation and management of dangerous facilities, as proposed by the Soviets; but there might well be some preliminary discussion to clear the air of evident Soviet misconceptions, such as that the control of ores was to be the first stage in the approved plan, and their misconception or intentional confusion about controls being provided in the approved plan before prohibition. Having [Page 69] cleared up this, the discussion might then go to the basic difference between cooperative versus national ownership and operation.
Dr. Wei made an excellent statement on this and it was suggested that he draft a memorandum for the various delegates to consider.
It was decided to do nothing about calling the meeting of the Sponsoring Powers until the delegates of the U.K. and France were able to report the position of their governments; this would indicate that the Secretary-General would call the meeting sometime soon after the 4th of July holiday.
Mr. Osborn said that he felt it would be advisable to have some new figure not hitherto associated in the public mind with atomic energy serve as United States representative at the meeting of the Sponsoring Powers, so that the public would feel that a really new try was being made.
General McNaughton heartily endorsed this point of view and said that while he thought it most important for the United States, the same thing should apply to him, though perhaps to a lesser degree, and he had already taken this up with his Foreign Office to see whether they would send one of their Under Secretaries or Assistant Secretaries of External Affairs, General McNaughton, of course, being present as an adviser.
It was agreed that the working paper, “Recommendations of the Atomic Energy Commission as approved at the Third Session of the General Assembly ….” (AEC/C.1/77/Rev. 15) would be used as a working paper in the consultations. It is now a Commission document, General McNaughton as Chairman having instructed the Secretariat to forward it to the Commission. He does not consider that it is necessary to make it a U.N. document in order to use it in the consultations. It can be used as it is. General McNaughton does not want to do anything more with the “comparative table” (AEC/35, paragraph 26). He feels we can use it in the consultations if we want to, as an entirely unofficial document.
- See editorial note, supra.↩
- For the text of the statement by Bernard M. Baruch, United States Representative, at the First Meeting of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, June 14, 1946, see United Nations, Official Records of the Atomic Energy Commission, First Year, Plenary Meetings, p. 4, or Department of State Bulletin, June 23, 1946, p. 1057.↩
- Not printed.↩
- US/AEC/33, the memorandum of the meeting of the majority delegates on June 3, is not printed. At that meeting it was agreed that two documents would be referred to the five governments: 1) Statement to be Used in the Consultation of the Six Sponsoring Powers, a draft statement of principles prepared by Wei and McNaughton; 2) a short paper prepared by Osborn reflecting the United States position on the Six Power talks. Neither paper is printed. (Department of State Atomic Energy Files)↩
- AEC, 4th yr., Special Suppl. No. 1.↩
- Resolution AEC/35 is described in footnote 4, p. 36. The comparative table is not printed.↩