IO Files: US/A/M(Chr)/96
Minutes of the Second Meeting of the United States Delegation to the Fourth Regular Session of the General Assembly,1 New York, September 19, 1949, 3 p. m.
secret
[Here follow a list of persons (36) present and discussion of various subjects.]
3. Atomic Energy (SD/A/C.1/2552)
Mr. Osborn explained that in two years of hard work the Atomic Energy Commission had developed over Soviet opposition a complete set of proposals for the international control of atomic energy. Last year the Assembly had approved its conclusions by a vote of 46 to 6. The Assembly had also instructed the six sponsoring powers to consult, as well as provided for further meetings of the AEC. The Commission had reconvened last February but the Soviet Union had refused to recognize the Assembly’s action and had again proposed negotiation on the basis of the Soviet proposal for a convention prohibiting use of the atomic weapon. Mr. Osborn noted that such a system could not prevent the use of the atomic bomb. Moreover, the Soviets proposed national operation and management of atomic energy plants and insisted that international inspections should be periodic and of declared facilities only. Following these developments, Argentina and Cuba had introduced a resolution noting the Soviet position and stating that in view of that position, nothing useful could be accomplished by continued meetings of the AEC.
Mr. Osborn referred next to the consultations which had been undertaken by the sponsoring powers beginning in August. At the [Page 169] present time it did not look as if there were a basis for agreement in the near future. However, it appeared that this group could come nearer to complete exploration of each others’ positions. There was unanimous agreement that we could not return to the AEC and negotiate on the basis of the Soviet proposals. We desired to transfer all negotiations to the sponsoring powers until they could find a basis for reopening negotiations in the AEC.
As for action by the Assembly, Mr. Osborn stated that Australia, India, and Syria might cause some trouble since they favored the conclusion of a treaty on this subject, which maneuver could put the USSR on the spot. No final report would be made by the sponsoring powers to this Assembly. Though there would doubtless be an interim report, the U.S. should resist any effort to resume the work of the AEC. In the absence of a report from the sponsoring powers, full scale debate in the Assembly on this matter would be pointless. As for having the Assembly refer in some way to the continuing discussions among the sponsoring powers, Mr. Osborn recommended that decision be postponed at this time. It was agreed that this would constitute the position of the Delegation.
4. Conventional Armaments (S/1371, 1372, S/C.3/32/Rev. 13)
Mr. Nash explained that when the Commission on Conventional Armaments had been set up, the subject of atomic energy had specifically been excluded from its jurisdiction. On that basis the CCA had adopted a plan of work and agreed upon a definition of conventional armaments. It had also worked out a statement of general principles for the regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces. Its report was expected to be considered by the SC in the immediate future. Mr. Nash pointed out that actually the report was one year late. He explained that in approving its report, the CCA had split 9 to 2, and a similar division could be anticipated in the SC.
Mr. Nash then referred to the action of the Assembly in Paris in adopting a proposal for a census of armaments and armed forces, other than atomic energy. The CCA had approved a French proposal on this matter by a vote of 8 to 3, and a Soviet veto was expected when the report came to the SC. The Soviet objection to the proposals was that they did not cover atomic weapons.
Mr. Nash said that the Assembly would have before it for action the second progress report of the CCA and the French proposals for verification of the census of armaments and armed forces. Ambassador Austin indicated that no immediate action was required by the Delegation and suggested further consideration of this matter be postponed until the SC had acted on the CCA report.
[Here follows discussion of other subjects.]