Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, National Security Affairs; Foreign Economic Policy, Volume I

IO Files: US/A/2897

Memorandum of Conversations, by the Deputy United States Representative to the Commission for Conventional Armaments (Nash)

confidential

[New York,] November 21, 1950.

Subject: President’s Suggestion Re Consolidation of AEC and CCA

Participants:	Mr. Frank Nash—Conversations, separately, with:
	Dr. Jacques Errera,1 Belgian Delegation
	Mr. David Cole, British Delegation
	Mr. J. E. Coulson,2 British Delegation
	Mr. Dennis Laskey, British Delegation
	Conversation with Messrs. Coulson and Laskey held jointly.
	Ambassador Fawzi Bey,3 Egyptian Delegation
	Dr. Jose Correa,4 Ecuadoran Delegation
	Mr. Francis Lacoste,5 French Delegation
	Sir Keith Officer,6 Australian Delegation

Following is the substance of recent conversations held with representatives of several Delegations concerning the President’s suggestion for the consolidation of the AEC and CCA.

Belgian Representative: Dr. Errera stated that his Delegation was very much interested in the President’s suggestion and inquired whether it indicated any possible change in the views of the US concerning cerning the possibility of relying upon a system of inspection alone for the control of atomic energy. He referred to the interview of Mr. Gordon Dean, Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, appearing in the November 3 issue of U.S. News and World Report, where Mr. Dean discussed briefly the effectiveness of a system of inspection in the atomic energy field. He wondered whether there was any possible connection between the President’s suggestion and the substance of the Gordon Dean interview. I replied that I was not aware of any connection between the two, and that I could definitely state that there was nothing in the President’s suggestion of a new commission that was to be taken as implying any change in the views of the US concerning the inadequacy of a system of mere inspection for the effective control of atomic energy. Dr. Errera stated that he was relieved to hear that there was no such implication to be derived from the President’s suggestion, adding that it continued to be the view of their Government that mere inspection alone could not be accepted as an effective system for the control of atomic energy. Dr. Errera also asked whether the President’s suggestion might carry the implication that the US might be going to propose some “swap” in the way of a reduction in the atomic field in exchange for a reduction in the field of conventional armaments and armed forces. I replied that I could not see how such an exchange would be feasible and that in any event, there was no such implication to be derived from the President’s suggestion. Dr. Errera said that in the view of his Delegation, the suggestion for the consolidation of the two present commissions into a single new commission was a good one and would receive their support. He said he thought that such a commission could carry forward much useful work with the technical phases of the problem in both the atomic and nonatomic fields, despite the inability to reach any present solution of the major political issues involved. He asked what our views might be concerning the composition of such a commission, volunteering his own opinion that probably the simplest approach would be to carry over the representation on the atomic energy commission; that is, all members of the Security Council plus Canada when not a member of the Security Council. He added, however, that some consideration might be given to countries like Belgium having an interest in the source materials of atomic energy. I replied that our thinking had not yet become firm on the point, but that we were presently inclined to agree with his view that the best approach would be to carry over the representation of the member nations serving on the atomic energy commission.

UK Representatives: At a luncheon meeting with Messrs. Coulson and Laskey pessimism was registered, particularly by the latter, concerning the possibility of any useful discussion going forward in the atomic energy field, either under the present set-up or under any organization which may be established. Mr. Coulson stated that although the problems were new to him, he felt that some useful discussions might continue to go forward in the CCA field, although he was not clear as to just what direction they would take. Both Mr. Coulson and Mr. Laskey stated that, in view of their Delegation, it would be unwise to attempt the establishment of a new Commission during the current General Assembly. Mr. Coulson added, however, that he felt some suggestion like that advanced by the Australian Delegation, concerning the appointment of a special committee to study the problem and report to the next General Assembly, might be in order. In a separate conversation with Mr. Cole, also of the UK Delegation, it was stated by him as his own personal view that the President’s suggestion was an “extremely sensible one”. However, Mr. Cole added that be felt some concern as to how far discussions could go ahead in CCA without encountering the very complicated problem of quotas, a problem to which he could see no present solution.

Egyptian Representative: Ambassador Fawzi Bey in a brief conversation stated that his Delegation thought the President’s suggestion was a good one, representing as it did a viewpoint which the Egyptian Delegation had been maintaining for some time.

Ecuadoran Representative: Dr. Correa stated that his Delegation was “very happy” about the President’s suggestion, and that he felt his Delegation would be willing to act as co-sponsor of any resolution which would be acceptable to the US in the way of implementing the President’s suggestion.

French Representative: Mr. Lacoste indicated that his Delegation would be willing to go along with whatever the US thought might be in order to implement the President’s suggestion. He added, however, that he thought the matter of a new organization should be very carefully worked out, particularly with respect to the terms of reference which would govern any new commission.

Australian Representative: At the outset of our conversation, Sir Keith Officer stated he was afraid that much of the momentum had been lost since the President’s suggestion was advanced, and he expressed some concern whether it would still be feasible to accomplish anything substantial during the current General Assembly. I assured Sir Keith that the only point that the US Delegation had in mind in suggesting that the Australian Delegation hold in abeyance the resolution which they had at first proposed introducing a few days after the President’s speech of October 24 was to avoid having the resolution fall within the context of the Soviet “peace proposals” which were then under debate in Committee One and also to give the other member nations time to think about the suggestion for a new commission, and time to formulate their views on the matter. I told Sir Keith that the US Delegation was most anxious to see that the President’s suggestion was given careful consideration during the current General Assembly and was implemented to the maximum extent consistent with the consensus. I added that if the general reaction to the President’s suggestion appeared to be one of general approval, but at the same time one of reluctance to tackle the job of working out the details during the present General Assembly, then the US Delegation would strongly favor the introduction of a resolution along the lines of the Australian draft. Sir Keith said that, in view of the foregoing, he would like to “shorten up somewhat” the earlier draft resolution of his Delegation, and transmit it to his foreign office to determine whether it might be possible for the Australian Delegation to introduce it at an appropriate stage of the GA, presumably in the course of the debate of the atomic energy question, which is scheduled to take place directly in plenary session.

1. Adviser, Permanent Belgian Delegation at the United Nations; Adviser, Belgian Delegation to the General Assembly.
2. Deputy Permanent British Representative at the United Nations; Adviser, British Delegation to the General Assembly.
3. Mahmoud Fawzi Bey, Permanent Egyptian Representative at the United Nations; Member of the Egyptian Delegation to the General Assembly.
4. Alternate Permanent Representative of Ecuador at the United Nations; Member of the Delegation of Ecuador to the General Assembly.
5. Alternate Permanent French Representative at the United Nations; Adviser, French Delegation to the General Assembly.
6. Australian Ambassador in France; Member of the Australian Delegation to the General Assembly.