Department of State Disarmament Files

Memorandum of Conversation, by Messrs. Frederick H. Osborn and Charles H. Russell of the United States Mission at the United Nations

confidential

US/S/C.3/91

Subject: Commission for Conventional Armaments and Atomic Energy Commission

Participants: General McNaughton, Mr. Ignatieff,2 Mr. Starnes, Canadian Delegation
Baron de la Tournelle,3 M. de Rose,4 French Delegation
Sir Terence Shone,5 Mr. Cole,6 United Kingdom Delegation
Mr. Frederick Osborn, United States Mission
Mr. Donald Leith, Division of International Security Affairs, Department of State
Mr. Charles Russell, United States Mission

1. Commission for Conventional Armaments

A meeting was held at the office of General McNaughton on January 18 to discuss the work of the Commission for Conventional Armaments and the Atomic Energy Commission.

General McNaughton said that he had just received a letter from the Secretary-General transmitting the text of the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on disarmament7 and requesting him, as President of the Security Council, to bring it to the attention of the Security Council. General McNaughton said that he would arrange [Page 15] to have this item placed on the agenda at the first opportunity; he would, as soon as authorized, transmit it to the President of the Commission for Conventional Armaments.

The question of when the first meeting of the Commission should be held was then discussed. Mr. Osborn thought that it would be desirable for him to call a meeting while he was President this month. Sir Terence Shone said that his Government was not yet prepared to submit concrete proposals and had suggested that the calling of a meeting be deferred. He said that there was no particular urgency. Mr. Osborn dissented from this view, in so far as the matter of urgency was concerned, and emphasized the fact that the first meeting would be largely procedural and that what he wanted to do was to ask the various delegations to obtain the views of their governments and then notify the President when they were ready to proceed. It was agreed that Mr. Osborn would arrange for a meeting late this month or early next month. In the latter event, the calling of a meeting would be binding upon his successor in the Presidency.

The question of the agenda was then discussed with particular reference to the proposed 1948 interim report of the Commission for Conventional Armaments to the Security Council, which failed to go forward because of Mr. Malik’s letter of September 14, 1948.8 Representatives of all the delegations present expressed the view that the question of adopting the progress report at this time was relatively unimportant. The resolutions on items 1 and 29 had already been adopted and it was only a question of when it would be most useful to send them to the Security Council. General McNaughton felt that they could be used appropriately when the Commission for Conventional Armaments reports on its work of this winter. Representatives of all the delegations present emphasized the fact that while they were speaking only for themselves and had no instructions from their governments, they would all prefer to take no action upon the report at this time, and to proceed without undue delay to the implementation of the resolution of the General Assembly.

It was felt that it was essential for the delegations represented at the meeting to exchange information before submitting concrete proposals to the Commission. It was suggested that possibly joint proposals [Page 16] might be submitted at such time as the views of the governments represented at the meeting had been ascertained. It was agreed that the delegations represented at the meeting should meet from time to time in New York and keep in close touch with each other.

2. Atomic Energy Commission

It was the consensus of opinion that it would be inadvisable to ask for a meeting until the Canadian, Chinese [French,] United Kingdom and United States Delegations were given ample opportunity to exchange views among themselves as to the most useful course to be followed in the Commission. Regret was expressed that there would be no Belgian Representative this year.

Mr. Osborn suggested that the Secretariat prepare a working paper setting out the Plan of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission as adopted by the General Assembly, putting it in sequent form, and with an appendix consisting of the General Considerations of the Second Report, and of the Third Report.10 He showed a draft of what he had in mind.11 This idea was well received. It was pointed out that the Secretariat could be requested to do this work only by the Commission, and that Norway might suggest it.

The consensus of opinion was that the Commission would have thoroughly to explore the possibility of further work on the uncompleted parts. Mr. Osborn suggested the possibility of beginning the work with Organization and Staffing. M. de Rose referred to the Six Power consultations. It was the consensus of opinion that the work of the Commission should be brought to a definite stage before the Six Power consultations should be called. It was agreed by all those present that it was important for the representatives of the delegations mentioned above to meet frequently in New York. A meeting of the same groups is to be held at the United States Mission on next Monday morning, January 24, at 10:30 o’clock, to consider how to handle the Atomic Energy debate, and what subjects to take up when the Commission meets.

Frederick Osborn
Charles Russell
  1. Document numbers on memoranda of conversation and records of meetings at the United Nations which appear in this compilation often bear document numbers supplied by the United States Mission. The date on each document bearing a USUN designation indicates the date on which the conversation or meeting was held, rather than the date on which the memorandum was circulated at USUN (often a subsequent date). The source texts for such documents frequently are located in the Department of State Disarmament Files or the Department of State Atomic Energy Files (Lot 57D688). However, copies of papers bearing USUN designations also exist in the master files of the Reference and Documents Section of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State (IO Files).
  2. George Ignatieff, Alternate Canadian Representative to the Atomic Energy Commission and the Commission for Conventional Armaments.
  3. Guy de la Tournelle, Alternate French Representative at the United Nations; Alternate Representative to the Commission for Conventional Armaments.
  4. François de Rose, Alternate French Representative to the Atomic Energy Commission.
  5. Deputy to the Permanent British Representative at the United Nations; Alternate British Representative to the Atomic Energy Commission and the Commission for Conventional Armaments.
  6. David L. Cole, Adviser, Permanent British Delegation to the United Nations.
  7. Reference is to Resolution 192(III); see footnote 8, p. 8.
  8. See footnote 3, p. 12.
  9. For text of the resolution approved by the CCA on item 1 of its Plan of Work (terms of reference), see Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. i, Part 1, p. 311, footnote 3. For the text of the resolution adopted on item 2 (general principles), see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fourth Session, Supplement No. 2, Report of the Security Council to the General Assembly, p. 7 (hereafter cited as GA (IV), Suppl. No. 2), or Department of State Bulletin, August 29, 1948, p. 267.
  10. The Third Report is published as United Nations, Official Records of the Atomic Energy Commission, Third Year, Special Supplement, The Third Report of the Atomic Energy Commission to the Security Council, May 17, 1948 (hereafter cited as AEC, 3rd yr., Special Suppl.), and as Department of State Publication 3179 (July 1948).
  11. Not identified.