USUN Files
The Alternate British Representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (Shone) to the Deputy United States Representative (Osborn)
My Dear Osborn: We have now received from London the comments of the Foreign Office on the draft statement of principles and on the proposals as regards tactics for the Six-Power meetings on Atomic Energy.1
2. The Foreign Office have approved the statement of principles subject to two suggested amendments. On page 6 the Foreign Office suggest that the first sentence of paragraph 5(a) might be amended to read “the development and use of atomic energy are not matters exclusively of domestic concern of individual nations. …” They feel that this slight rearrangement and the substitution of “exclusively” for “essentially” would be an improvement. The second amendment concerns paragraph 6(a) (on Page 7) where the Foreign Office would prefer to omit entirely the second sentence, “nations cannot have any proprietary rights … within their territories”. The Foreign Office feel that this sentence, although it is taken from the Second Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, goes rather further than we should wish on the question of ownership. As you know, we did not press for the second report to be amended before its submission, but we did make it clear that we had certain reservations on one or two points of which ownership was the most important. We still feel certain doubts on this subject and would therefore prefer not to commit ourselves if this can be avoided. The Foreign Office feel that the principle which this sub-paragraph is designed to establish is sufficiently covered by the first sentence and that the omission of the second sentence would not seriously weaken the paper.
3. We are, of course, aware that the question of ownership may come up during the Six-Power talks or indeed in subsequent discussion during the Fourth Session. If we have to embark on detailed discussion, I very much hope that it may be possible to avoid the use of the word “ownership” and to concentrate on the need for the agency to control the “operation and management” of materials and facilities. [Page 77] On the latter point we are, as you know, in full agreement with the Atomic Energy Commission’s recommendations. I only emphasise this point because we are naturally most anxious that any slight divergency of view which may exist between the five friendly delegations should not be brought out into the open thereby enabling the Russians to exploit it.
4. The Foreign Office are in full agreement with the memorandum on tactics for the Six-Power talks, which was discussed at our meeting on June 3rd. They agree in particular that the Statement of principles should be discussed at the Six-Power meetings and that we should press the Russians to say whether they accept the statement or not and in the latter event to specify their objections to it. The instructions we have received from London show that the Foreign Office have not yet had time to consider the State Department’s suggestion that the statement of principles should be held in reserve and not put forward at the opening of the talks. Our own view on this point, which I think we have indicated to you, is that it may well be sound tactics not to introduce the statement at the opening meeting, but we do feel that it should be put forward at an early stage in the discussions.
5. Just before he went on leave François de Rose asked us to raise with you a number of suggestions which he wished to make on the statement of principles. I had hoped to do this before now, but a suitable opportunity has not arisen and I think it may be best if I circulate de Rose’s suggestions in writing. The views in the enclosed note2 are of course his and I have not included any comments which we may have on them, since I think this could best be done when we meet to consider these and any further suggestions which other delegations may have.
6. I think it was agreed at our last informal meeting3 that as soon as all five delegations had obtained clearance from their governments we should hold a further meeting to consider final amendments to the statement on basic principles and to work out detailed tactics for the Six-Power talks. We shall be ready for such a meeting at any time which may be convenient to the other delegations, though for personal reasons I should prefer not to have it until after the 4th July. If an approach to the Secretary-General about fixing a date for the Six-Power talks were made then, I suppose the talks could start some time after the 15th July, when I believe François de Rose will be back.
7. I am sending a similar letter to the representatives concerned in the other friendly delegations.
Yours sincerely,