USUN Files
The Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (Osborn) to the Alternate French Representative to the Security Council (de la Tournelle)
Dear Baron de la Tournelle: I acknowledge with thanks and appreciation your letter of July 11 concerning the draft resolution which [Page 98] was proposed for introduction in the Atomic Energy Commission when it meets next week.
As you know it was the desire of all of us that the meeting of the Commission to consider the resolution sent to it by the Working Committee should be deferred until Mr. de Rose’s return so that he could be personally present. Since the summer is already so far advanced, it was felt that the meeting must be held at the earliest possible date after his return, and accordingly it has been called for next Wednesday, July 20, at 10:30.
In the meantime, it was necessary to continue the preparation of the draft resolution so that all delegations could give it their careful consideration. In doing this, the views expressed by your Government have been carefully taken into account. The form of the resolution has been changed and its content modified so that its references to the position of the Soviet Union would consist of a simple factual report. We did not see how the Commission could do less than this, as it is certainly necessary that the General Assembly as well as the Sponsoring Powers, when they meet, should have before them a clear statement of the respective positions of the two sides. I enclose a copy of the resolution as now proposed.1 The Canadian and British Delegates, who have gone over this with great care, believe that it fully meets the requirements laid down in your letter that it should be expressed “dans une forme nuancée.”
We also considered at length the desire of the French Government that the resolution should specifically suggest to the General Assembly that the Six Powers be invited to make periodic the meeting envisaged in the resolution of November 4, 1948. The three delegations were agreed that such a recommendation would be desirable in the event of the failure of the Sponsoring Powers to reach agreement the first time, but they did not believe that such a feeling should be expressed in the resolution of the Atomic Energy Commission. Their feeling was that this was a position to be taken either in the General Assembly itself or by the Sponsoring Powers and that it should be expressed only in the event of failure of the Sponsoring Powers to find a basis of negotiation. Otherwise, we would seem to be expecting failure even before the meeting of the Sponsoring Powers had taken place.
We hope to be able to talk these matters over with Mr. de Rose at the earliest possible moment after his arrival.
Please accept the assurance of my highest regard.
Sincerely yours,