600.0012/12–3053
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Murphy)
- Subject:
- International Atomic Agency
- Participants:
- Sir Roger Makins, British Ambassador
- The Secretary
- Mr. Robert Murphy
Ambassador Makins called at his request and said that the thinking in London regarding the international atomic agency to be set up under the proposal contained in the President’s UN speech concerned three things: (1) procedure; (2) substance; and (3) relationship to disarmament.
Ambassador Makins said that as regards procedure there is obviously the question whether the matter should be treated within the framework of the UN or in private, diplomatic channels, and that London seemed to have no fixed notions on this score. About substance, he said that he had talked with Cockroft during his recent visit to England. The British apparently have been speculating on whether the international agency would actually stockpile atomic material or whether the agency would farm-out the actual custody to other agencies. British thinking also apparently contemplates that the agency would indulge in extensive research, laboratories, construction of reactors, etc. On the subject of disarmament, Makins said that it is the view of his Government that we should continue to retain the initiative and not allow the Soviet Union to take advantage of this opportunity to “run away with the ball.” London has been giving considerable study to the question of how the President’s proposal, which primarily relates to industrial power, should be linked to disarmament, and whether conventional and unconventional weapons should be treated jointly under the heading of disarmament with atomic energy. He inquired how far our thinking had got.
The Secretary said that of course we were awaiting the return of the President to Washington next week before proceeding in this matter. Obviously, there are many features of the subject to be worked out and he did not pretend to have the answers. He said [Page 1321] that about procedure as between the UN approach, which would involve discussions with a considerable number of the representatives in the Disarmament Commission, he at this stage inclines to the view that it would be preferable to deal with the matter in private conversations. He said he had thought that if there were to be a Four-Power meeting in Berlin on January 4, that discussions, perhaps with Molotov in the margin of that meeting, would be the best approach. Now that that meeting has been postponed to January 25, he was not quite sure how to approach the matter.
The Secretary also said that on substance, while decisions had not been taken by us, on balance he would imagine that the agency would deal with the custody of the atomic material directly rather than farming out projects. He could not answer, he said, on the technical side as to what, if anything, would be developed regarding research.
The Secretary also said that we are giving very active study to the question of how to deal with the disarmament factor and its relationship to the President’s speech and he hoped shortly that we would be in a position to discuss this more effectively.
Ambassador Makins said that he realized that we, like the British, are only in the first stage of our thinking on this subject but that he wanted to give London the drift of our present thoughts. He said that incident to his visit to London there was a discussion whether Ascension Island in the South Atlantic might conceivably be a suitable place for the storage of the material, but after consideration of the volcanic structure of the island it was thought not suitable.