Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, National Security Affairs, Foreign Economic Policy, Volume I

Department of State Disarmament Files

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Deputy United States Representative to the Commission for Conventional Armaments (Nash)

confidential

[New York,] July 12, 1949.

US/S/C.3/25

Subject: Conventional Armaments Commission: Program of Future Action

Participants:	General McNaughton, Mr. Ignatieff; Canadian Delegation
	Baron de la Tournelle, Colonel Penette; French Delegation
	Mr. Ivar Lunde; Norwegian Delegation
	Sir Terence Shone, Mr. Laskey, Wing Commander Warne; United Kingdom Delegation
	Mr. Nash, Mr. Russell; United States Mission
	Mr. Shooshan; Department of State
	Colonel Townsely; Military Staff Committee

Immediately following the conclusion of the meeting of the CCA Working Committee this morning, an informal discussion was held by the representatives of the Canadian, French, Norwegian, UK and US delegations for the purpose of forecasting the future program of action in CCA. It was agreed that the French proposals on census and verification would be put to the vote at the meeting of the Working Committee called for on Monday, July 18.¹ The vote is expected to result in the approval of the French proposals by an 8–2 majority (the two negative votes being cast by the Soviet and Ukrainian representatives, with Egypt probably abstaining although, in the light of Khalifa Bey’s² statement at today’s meeting, it is by no means out of the question that Egypt may cast a negative vote). The effect of this action will be to take the French proposals out of the Working Committee and place them before the Commission itself. A meeting of the Commission will be called for on Tuesday, July 19, at which time two matters will be brought up for action: 1) approval of the French proposals on census and verification for transmission to the SC, and 2) approval for transmission to the SC of the Second Progress Report of CCA (S/C.3/32/Rev. 1) which was prepared for submission to the SC a year ago but was at that time blocked by the Soviet Representative. Whether these items can both be disposed of at the meeting proposed for July 19 remains to be seen, it being impossible at this time to forecast the attitude of the Soviet and Ukrainian representatives. However, with respect to the Second Progress Report (item 2 above), it may be noted that at the CCA meeting of 23 February 1949, Malik stated that “it was a matter of entire indifference to the USSR Delegation whether or not it was referred to the Council”. If this continues to be the Soviet position, there should be no delay in acting on the item of the Second Progress Report.

Upon completion of action on the two items referred to above, it is expected that CCA’s business will be wound up for the time being and the scene of action will shift to the SC where it is expected the Soviet and Ukrainian representatives will continue their opposition to the French proposals, with the position of Egypt remaining unclear.

Following the conclusion of the discussion outlined above, the representatives of the Canadian, UK and US delegations remained behind to discuss briefly the UK amendment to the French Working Paper (S/C.3/SC.3/22)³ making the “complete order of battle” available to the control organ for verification purposes. A general discussion was held concerning the construction to be placed on the phrase “order of battle” and the following was established:

“Order of battle is a list of component parts of all ground, naval and air forces by designation and numbers of personnel. To facilitate verification, the location of units selected for on-the-spot checking will be furnished central control authority upon request.”

In order to ensure that the foregoing construction accurately reflected the intention of the UK Home Office and Military, Sir Terence said that he would submit the foregoing to London for immediate clearance.

Frank C. Nash

1. At its 25th Meeting, July 18, the Working Committee adopted the French working paper as a whole (S/C.3/SC.3/21/Rev. 1/Corr. 1) by a vote of 8–3 (Soviet Union, Ukraine, Egypt); for text, see the report of the Commission for Conventional Armaments to the Security Council (S/1372), August 9, p. 106.
2. Brig. Gen. Mohamed Adbel Halim Khalifa Bey, Alternate Egyptian Representative to the Commission for Conventional Armaments.
3. The British amendment applied to Section II, Part BII, paragraph 1 of the French working paper; see footnote 3, p. 63. In telegram 821 from New York, July 12, Ambassador Austin reported that the French had agreed to incorporate it into their proposal and that the United States Delegation intended to support the paper thus amended (501.BC Armaments/7–1249). In telegram 363 to New York, July 14, the Department indicated that the amendment with the construction placed upon it by the United Kingdom fell within existing instructions and could be supported (501.BC Armaments/7–1249).