Department of State Disarmament Files
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Charles H. Russell, Adviser, United States Mission at the United Nations
US/AEC/41
| Participants: | General McNaughton, Major Pierce Goulding, Mr. Grande; Canadian Delegation |
| Dr. Wei, Chinese Delegation | |
| M. de Rose, French 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 afternoon of July 19 to continue the discussion referred to in US/AEC/381 and earlier memoranda.
I. U.N.A.E.C.
General McNaughton said that he had received instructions from his Government to vote for the resolution which Mr. Osborn would propose. He added that this involved no change of position on his part; he would have preferred to support the Chinese and Cuban-Argentine resolutions adopted in the Working Committee, but his Government considered the most important factor to be the retention of a united front. Sir Terence Shone said that his instructions were to the same effect. M. de Rose said that he had transmitted the text of the resolution to his Government and had recommended acceptance for the same reasons.
II. Statement of Principles
The statement of principles to be used in the Six Power Consultations (US/AEC/33) was discussed in great detail. A number of proposed amendments submitted by the United States Delegation and other delegations were considered, as follows:
(A) (8)—page 2: New Approach. M. de Rose said that he felt that the atomic energy debate at the meeting of the General Assembly in Paris last autumn had not been very satisfactory. What he had meant by a new approach was to work out the problem from a different angle. The paper under discussion was merely restating what we regarded as fundamental, but M. de Rose did not think that this was the way to present it. He wanted to restate the majority position in different wording, but realized the difficulties of the United States in accepting [Page 100] new wording. He asked whether we could not arrive at a solution in a different way as otherwise he felt that we stood to lose everything. He stated that if the others felt that they could not accept his point of view he would be obliged to reconsider his entire position, but in his subsequent remarks he modified his position considerably. Mr. Osborn pointed out that the U.S.S.R. would not be impressed by the logic which M. de Rose had used and he felt that the course which M. de Rose suggested might give the U.S.S.R. an opportunity to say that the majority members were not standing by the General Assembly resolution. He agreed that the debates in Paris had not been entirely satisfactory.
General McNaughton said that his Government were in favor of a new effort to make the U.S.S.R. understand, but he did not wish to lay too much emphasis upon a new approach nor to give the impression to the public of Canada that we were dispensing with all the work that the Commission had accomplished. To do so would have an unfortunate effect in Canada and a disastrous effect in the United States. He added that his Government had warned him of that danger.
Sir Terence Shone expressed the view that a great deal depended on what use was going to be made of the Statement of Principles. It was no longer to serve as the agenda. It might become desirable to give the Russians the paper, but not at the beginning of the negotiations. He felt that there was some merit in being able to state to the General Assembly that the problem was being approached from a new angle. M. de Rose said that what was really wanted was for the General Assembly to say that the Commission and the Sponsoring Powers had done everything they could and that there was no use in making further efforts. He realized the importance of public opinion in the United States and in Canada, but emphasized the importance of public opinion in Europe. He expressed the view that when the General Assembly did not tell the Atomic Energy Commission to suspend, it was a defeat for us. General McNaughton said that he could not agree with this. He referred particularly to the position of South Africa and India; in the case of India, at least, their delegates were merely maintaining a bargaining position. He could not agree with M. de Rose that there was any question of defeat in the General Assembly and pointed out that the nations of the world had accepted what was presented to them.
Mr. Osborn pointed out the difficulty with which he would be faced if the United States Congress got the impression that we were scrapping the majority plan. He added that the important thing was to get the U.S.S.R. in the Six Power Consultations to agree to fundamental principles.
[Page 101][Here follows detailed discussion of the Statement of Principles.]
III. Letter to the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations (US/AEC/38)
Sir Terence Shone said that Sir Alexander Cadogan had requested a meeting in his office on Thursday morning, July 21, at 11 o’clock to consider this matter further.
IV. Treatment of Ownership in the Statement of Principles (US/AEC/36 and /38)
Sir Terence Shone said that he was still awaiting instructions from his Government.