IO Files: US/A/AC.31/204
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Joseph S. Sparks, Adviser, United States Delegation to the General Assembly
| Participants: | Sir B. N. Rau, Indian Delegation |
| Mr. M. Gopala Menon, Indian Delegation | |
| Mr. Charles Noyes, United States Delegation | |
| Mr. Joseph S. Sparks, United States Delegation |
Following the meeting of the Ad Hoc Political Committee during which Sir Benegal presented the Indian resolution and addressed the Committee thereon,1 I met him in the hall and asked if I might have a few words with him. I told him of the Nehru departure and of the crowd thereat and then referred to the address which he had made in support of the Indian resolution.
I told Sir B. N. that we had, of course, not had sufficient time to examine the address or to discuss it in a delegation meeting, but that I had had a chance to talk about it for a moment with Mr. Hickerson and thought that he might be interested in his reactions. Sir B. N. said that he was sure that Sir Carl Berendsen2 had had his speech already written and had not let sufficient time pass between the Indian speech and the New Zealand comments which otherwise undoubtedly would not have been so strong. Sir B. N. said that he would be very interested indeed in our comments.
I told Sir B. N. that our off-hand reaction was one of regret that there were not either more Indians in the world or that he was not [Page 215] in a position to speak to the General Assembly in the name of the USSR. I said that we fully appreciated the genuine and constructive idealism out of which Sir B. N.’s suggestions had arisen and that we had the highest esteem for him personally. I made it quite clear that this was a subject which we had deliberately not presented to one of our delegation meetings as we had wished to hear his address before doing so. Accordingly, there was little, if anything, that I could say, other than that we did wonder if his resolution were not a little premature. I said we felt strongly that no channel of approach could be really productive short of complete reversal on the part of the USSR in its present position with regard to inspection and control.
Sir B. N. said that he fully recognized this difficulty but that he was concerned primarily with the opportunities for the peaceful utilization of atomic energy by the fifty or more nations which were only indirectly involved at the present time. He said that he had anticipated that it might be necessary for us to abstain on his resolution just as it might be necessary for another group to do so, but that he felt that the time had come when the nations of the world, not involved directly, should have the tremendous advantage of having atomic energy available for their development, As an example he cited India which he said lacked all of the accouterments of modern civilization and to which the utilization of atomic energy would be a great boon. He said that quite apart from the problems which confronted those nations which possessed already the atomic bomb, he was thinking primarily of the vast majority of the nations of the world which did not and for whom atomic energy might well be the answer for the lack of oil and coal in their countries.
Sir B. N. said that he did not expect us to go along with the resolution or declaration which might be produced by the International Law Commission, because of the reservations which we would be forced to make, but that he did think that if a large majority of the membership of the United Nations did support his resolution, a way might be found whereby they could enjoy the fruits of atomic energy without engaging in the production of atomic weapons.
It was quite apparent that Sir B. N. was somewhat annoyed by being termed “unrealistic” by the New Zealand delegate. He said that in point of fact he felt that the only delegations who were being unrealistic were those which advocated the type of program for which we stood. As far as he could see, our program could only involve a type of World Government which he very much doubted the United States Senate or any other responsible legislative branch of any independent government would be prepared to accept. Once one of the most difficult problems of international relations was to be solved in this manner, administered by a body of indeterminate composition, the first and most major step toward World Government would have been [Page 216] taken. While Sir B. N. was a most ardent advocate of world government, he felt that this was not the appropriate time to broach the subject and that if it were broached, it would be doomed to failure.
When I asked Sir B. N. if he was sure the ILC was the appropriate body to which to refer a problem of this nature, he repeated what he had implied in his speech—that if we liked the idea but questioned the agency which he had suggested, he would be glad to present to the Committee on very short notice a draft of the type of declaration which he had in mind, and the General Assembly itself could act on it. He said that he doubted if we would question the competence of the General Assembly. He then reviewed the points which he had made in his speech which he said such an approach might accomplish. As he was finishing this, we joined Mr. Noyes and Mr. Menon, who were discussing the same general subject. Sir B. N. went back to the beginning of his arguments for Mr. Noyes’ benefit.
Mr. Noyes said that he had not previously been aware that one of Sir B. N.’s goals was the making available of atomic energy for peaceful use to countries which did not currently possess it. He pointed out that the moment one of them did possess it, even on the basis of having signed an agreement never to produce weapons or to utilize them, that country too would become suspect to its neighbors and to the world just as we had. Sir B. N. failed to accept this point, saying that these countries would be in a different position as they would have foregone the production or storage of atomic weapons voluntarily, which we had not done. He said that he could understand our inability to do this at the present time, but did not think that for that reason we should abandon our faith in all other nations.
Mr. Noyes also answered Sir B. N.’s argument that the convention prohibiting the use of poison gases was a precedent. He pointed out that it was not the convention which had stopped the use of poison gases but the fear of reprisals, and that in point of fact the convention had had no influence whatsoever on the armaments race in poison gas. He said that he did not feel that Sir B. N.’s approach was apt to have very much influence either upon the armaments race in atomic weapons, and that he felt that that was the major problem which needed to be faced.
As we were leaving the building, Sir B. N. told me that he would take only so much more of being called unrealistic and that then he would have to “bite back” and ask in the Committee just who was being really unrealistic in talking about a solution which involved the evolution of a form of World Government in the present circumstances in the world. He did not say this bitterly, but in a very matter of fact tone—which seemed even more ominous to me for that very reason.