Office of the Historian
  1. Home
  2. Historical Documents
  3. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, National Security Affairs, Foreign Economic Policy, Volume I
  4. Document 9

Department of State Disarmament Files

Minutes of the Ninety-fifth Meeting of the Executive Committee on Regulation of Armaments, at the Department of State, January 26, 1949, 10:30 a. m.

January 26, 1949, 10:30 a.m.

secret

RAC M–95, Rev. 1

Present

Members:

  • Department of State
  • Dean Rusk,1 Chairman, succeeded by John C. Elliott
  • Henry L. Abbott,2 Acting Executive Secretary
  • John L. Kuhn, Acting Secretary
  • Department of the Army
  • Lt. Col. H. A. Gerhardt
  • Department of the Navy
  • Capt. Robert H. Wilkinson
  • Department of the Air Force
  • Brig. Gen. P. M. Hamilton
  • USUN
  • Mr. Frederick Osborn, Deputy U.S. Representative on the UNAEC

Consultants:

  • Department of State
  • R. Gordon Arneson3
  • Joseph Chase
  • Howard C. Johnson
  • Donald M. Leith
  • James M. Ludlow
  • Trevor W. Swett
  • Department of the Navy
  • Lt. Comdr. Elmore P. Higgins
  • Department of the Air Force
  • Major J. M. Wilson

Minutes of Meeting Held January 12, 19494

Action was deferred on the minutes of the meeting held January 12, 1949.

Discussion of International Control of Atomic Energy

Mr. Osborn stated that during recent informal meetings of representatives of friendly delegations of the AEC divergent views have [Page 23] been expressed with respect to the future work of the Commission. On the one hand there appears to be a desire on the part of some of the delegations to proceed with the discussion of some of the remaining items in the Plan of Work, such as “organization”, “quotas”, and “stages”, while on the other hand some of the delegates, notably General McNaughton, feel strongly that the Commission should devote its first efforts to the preparation of a “layman’s” edition of the two Commission reports approved by the General Assembly on November 4, 1948. Such an edition would present by subject matter and in consolidated form the GA approved portions of the First and Second Reports of the AEC utilizing only the exact language of the AEC reports with titles provided for the text. Mr. Osborn was of the opinion that the need for such a rewrite could be established by having one of the new members of the Commission, notably Mr. Moe5 of Norway, make the suggestion that such a presentation be prepared by the UN Secretariat.

Mr. Osborn stated that it would be desirable, in anticipation of general debate of the broad political and technical considerations remaining to be discussed in the work plan, for this Government to be prepared to discuss some of the topics remaining before the Commission. He suggested that if it should prove necessary to give further direction to the discussions in the Commission, a suitable basis for the Government’s position might be provided by the views expressed by Mr. Leith in the meeting in New York on January 24, 19496 to the effect that organization and staffing would be the one of the remaining topics which could best be discussed.

Mr. Arneson held that there were dangers involved in further development of the plan as now approved so long as there were no likelihood of Soviet cooperation. He felt that the differences of opinion that might arise in further elaboration of the approved plan, while healthy as indicators of honest differences and sincerity of purpose on the part of the majority delegations, might serve to compromise the strength of the position now held by the majority.

Mr. Rusk felt that it would not be desirable to enter into a discussion of a subject which might make a break in the majority in support of the plan.

General Hamilton supported Mr. Arneson’s position. He considered it a dangerous course to undertake further development of the majority plan at this time as it would probably be interpreted as a method of breaking the impasse on the fundamental issues of control. He felt that such a course could only lead to a weakening of the majority position; and that our position is clear that nothing constructive can be achieved in the field of atomic energy control until there is a change [Page 24] in Soviet attitude. Our support of the General Assembly Resolution should not be taken as evidence of a change in our position, since our decision to accord such support was based only on tactical grounds.

Mr. Osborn expressed the opinion that it would be better to concentrate on the work at the Commission level prior to the commencement of consultations by the Sponsoring Powers.

Mr. Rusk emphasized the importance of not scheduling the consultations in relation to the next session of the General Assembly in April,7 lest, as a result of the consultations, the problem of atomic energy might be raised again at that session. There was general agreement that the consultations should take place after the April General Assembly session, or at any rate at a late enough date to prevent the problem from arising in the GA before its next regular session.

Future Work of the Commission for Conventional Armaments

Mr. Osborn expressed the opinion that the General Assembly Resolution of November 19, 1948, calling for a census of armed forces and conventional armaments and verification of the information collected, provided the United States with an extremely favorable opportunity, resulting entirely from action independently initiated by other nations, to test the willingness of the Soviet Union to cooperate in any steps leading towards disarmament, and if the Soviet Union would not cooperate, to demonstrate clearly to the world the insincerity of the Soviet disarmament proposals. Mr. Osborn felt that in order to take full advantage of this opportunity, this Government should formulate and transmit to him within the next ten days its position concerning the information to be called for by the census. Mr. Osborn hoped that by discussing the U.S. position with representatives of other friendly nations before their governments had formulated positions of their own, he would be able to get the support of those governments for our plan or something very close to it. Mr. Osborn said that he need not be informed initially of the full scope of the information for which the census should call but that he considered it most important that he receive initial instructions before the governments of friendly CCA Delegations had independently formulated and adopted divergent positions.

The Committee then proceeded to consider RAC D–34a8 and RAC D–9/8.9 After discussing the manner in which these papers should be [Page 25] revised, and after agreeing to meet the following day to continue its discussion, the Committee adjourned.

  1. Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs.↩
  2. Staff Member, Division of International Security Affairs.↩
  3. Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State for atomic energy policy. James E. Webb succeeded Robert A. Lovett as Under Secretary on January 27, 1949.↩
  4. Not printed.↩
  5. Finn Moe, Norwegian Representative to the Atomic Energy Commission and Alternate Representative to the Commission for Conventional Armaments.↩
  6. Memorandum of conversation, supra.↩
  7. The second part of the Third Regular Session of the General Assembly was scheduled to meet in New York in April to complete action on those agenda items not disposed of during the first part of the Third Session held in Paris, September–December 1948.↩
  8. Document RAC D–34a is not printed; for text of a revised version, RAC D–34e, March 2, see p. 33.↩
  9. RAC D–9/8, January 14, “U.S. Position on Reporting and Verification of Conventional Armaments and Armed Forces”, a draft submitted by the Alternate Navy Member for the consideration of the Committee, is not printed.↩