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

Department of State Disarmament Files

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Charles H. Russell, Adviser, United States Mission at the United Nations

secret

[New York,] July 13, 1949.

US/AEC/38

Participants:	General McNaughton, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Starnes; Canadian Delegation
	Dr. Wei; Chinese Delegation
	Sir Terence Shone, Mr. Laskey; United Kingdom Delegation
	Mr. Osborn, Mr. Russell, United States Mission

A meeting was held at the United States Mission on the morning of July 13 to continue the discussion referred to in US/AEC/36.¹

1. UNAEC

Mr. Osborn first decribed, for the benefit of those who had not been present, a meeting which had been held in Mr. Austin’s office on July 11² at which, in addition to the Ambassador, General McNaughton, Messrs. Ignatieff, Starnes, Ross, Osborn and Russell had been present.

Mr. Osborn then referred to a conversation which he had had with the Secretary of State at Washington on July 12.³ This meeting had lasted for over an hour. Mr. Osborn had carefully presented the views of General McNaughton (US/AEC/36). There was a very full discussion. It was Mr. Acheson’s considered opinion that the Commission ought to complete its work now and adopt a resolution along the lines of the U.S. draft resolution (US/AEC/36)⁴ making it clear that the impasse continued to exist and giving the principal reasons therefor, and that this must be done before the meeting of the Sponsoring Powers.

2. Letter from the French Delegation

Mr. Osborn circulated a letter from Baron de la Tournelle, the text of which, in translation, is attached.⁵ Mr. Osborn thought that there would be no objection on the part of the United States to periodic meetings of the Sponsoring Powers.

3. Procedure and Tactics in the UNAEC

There followed a discussion as to procedure and tactics. In reply to questions asked by Mr. Laskey, Mr. Osborn felt that the meat of the situation lay in the fact that the impasse analyzed in the Third Report still existed, as stated in the final paragraph of the U.S. draft resolution. He believed that the Commission should go on record with a brief statement of the facts without passing judgment on the USSR. He agreed that the text of the U.S. draft resolution could be altered, but emphasized that the basic difference—national vs. international ownership—should be retained.

4. U.S. Draft Resolution

The meeting was devoted principally to a close examination of the U.S. draft resolution (US/AEC/36). After prolonged discussion a shorter text was agreed upon; the text is attached.

Dr. Wei said that the resolution in its present form was satisfactory to him and that the present text removed any objections to it which he might previously have had. General McNaughton and Sir Terence Shone accepted the text ad referendum.

5. Letter to the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations

General McNaughton circulated a draft of a letter to the Acting Secretary-General⁶ requesting him to call a meeting of the Six Sponsoring Powers as soon as possible.

(At this point Messrs. Ross and Noyes joined the meeting and took part in the discussion of this matter.)

Questions of procedure were discussed: whether the Canadian letter could serve for all delegations, whether each delegation should write separately, whether the U.S.S.R. Delegation should be sounded out privately, and, if so, by whom, whether or not a representative of the Secretary-General should be present at the meetings (it was felt that he should not be present), and other related matters.

Sir Terence Shone asked that before General McNaughton’s letter was forwarded to the Acting Secretary-General he be given an opportunity to consult Sir Alexander Cadogan.⁷

No final conclusions were reached.

6. Further Consideration of the U.S. Draft Resolution

Before the meeting adjourned, General McNaughton expressed the personal opinion that the U.S. draft resolution as amended at the meeting “pretty well meets the points we had in mind”.

7. Next Meeting of the Commission

It was agreed that Dr. Wei, in his capacity as Chairman, would call a meeting of the Commission for next Wednesday morning, July 20, at 10:30 o’clock. It was further agreed that before Dr. Wei actually made arrangements for calling the meeting, Sir Terence Shone would be given an opportunity to consult Sir Alexander Cadogan and that he would thereupon communicate with Dr. Wei. (Note: we have since been informed that the date proposed is satisfactory to the U.K. Delegation.)

8. Treatment of Ownership in the “Statement of Principles”⁸

On the question of ownership (US/AEC/36), Sir Terence Shone said that he expected to hear from his Government in the very near future.

C. H. Russell

[Annex]

Draft of Proposed Resolution⁹

confidential

[New York,] July 13, 1949.

The Atomic Energy Commission,

Reports:

That in accordance with the instructions of the General Assembly in its resolution of November 4, 1948, the Atomic Energy Commission has surveyed its programme of work in order to determine whether further work would be practicable and useful;

That the U.S.S.R. and the Ukrainian S.S.R. continue to reject the recommendations of the Commission approved by the General Assembly on November 4, 1948, including those forms of control contained in the plan approved by the General Assembly “as constituting the necessary basis for establishing an effective system of international control of atomic energy to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes and for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons in accordance with the terms of reference of the Atomic Energy Commission”;

That the U.S.S.R. and the Ukrainian S.S.R. continue to insist on the adoption of the resolution proposed by the U.S.S.R., and rejected by the General Assembly on November 4, 1948, to prepare immediately separate conventions based on the proposals of the Soviet Union of June 1946 and June 1947 which provide among other things for national ownership of dangerous and explosive atomic materials, and for national ownership, operation and management of dangerous atomic facilities. This in the opinion of the other members of the Commission, would not remove causes for suspicion, fear and distrust among nations, would render ineffective the prohibition of atomic weapons, and would continue dangerous national rivalries in the field of atomic energy.

Concludes:

That the impasse as analyzed in the Third Report of the Atomic Energy Commission still exists; that these differences are irreconcilable at the Commission level, and that further discussion in the Atomic Energy Commission would tend to harden these differences and would serve no practicable or useful purpose until such time as the Sponsoring Powers have reported that there exists a basis for agreement.

1. Memorandum of conversation, July 6, p. 80.
2. No record of this meeting has been found in the files of the Department of State.
3. See memorandum of conversation, p. 89.
4. Reference is to the draft attached to memorandum of conversation US/AEC/36, not printed.
5. Dated July 11, p. 88.
6. Not printed.
7. Permanent British Representative at the United Nations; Representative to the Security Council, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Commission for Conventional Armaments.
8. The statement of principles went through several preliminary drafts, none of which is printed. For the statement actually introduced as a working paper in the consultations of the six sponsoring powers, see the Appendix to the Second Meeting, August 16, in United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fourth Session, Supplement No. 15, “International Control of Atomic Energy,” p. 6 (hereafter cited as GA (IV), Suppl. No. 15).
9. Introduced by the United States Delegation at the 23rd Meeting of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, July 20; for the record of that meeting, see AEC, 4th yr., No. 7.