Atomic Energy files, lot 57 D 688, “Quebec Agreement”
The Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Atomic Energy Affairs (Arneson) to the Counselor of Embassy in the United Kingdom (Penfield)
Dear Jim: I am sorry I have not had an opportunity before now to give you a fill in on the possibility of publishing the Quebec Agreement.1 The matter has a rather long history which might be worth repeating. The story goes back several years.
When the Labor Government was in power and Churchill was busy writing his books he asked the Government to ask us whether we would be agreeable to publishing the Quebec Agreement. The British came to us with a strong implication they very much hoped we would turn down the request. This was easy to do at that time on the simple grounds that Churchill was not then a member of the Government and it would not be appropriate to honor his request. Moreover, it was fairly plain that his purpose in asking publication of the Quebec Agreement was partly at least to fill out his memoirs.
When Churchill came back to power the argument had to be shifted. At one stage I recall we had to say to him that while some [Page 1356] purpose might be served by publication of the Quebec Agreement, that Agreement standing by itself would give a distorted picture of our atomic energy relationships over the years. The subsequent publication of Vandenberg’s book2 brought a good deal of the Quebec Agreement into public print. Churchill, however, did not come back at us as a result of this and the matter lay in limbo until Bermuda.
At Bermuda Churchill raised with the President the question whether it might not be desirable to publish jointly a White Paper on our atomic energy relationships.3 The President said he was agreeable in principle and directed Chairman Strauss to look into the matter. It was understood that no final decision would be taken, however, until the actual document had been reviewed by the two governments concerned. Both Eden and Cherwell made it plain to some of our people, as well as to Chairman Strauss, that they took a very dim view of the enterprise and would be glad if it never saw the light of day. Roger Makins has spoken in the same vein. His line is that there is no purpose to be served by dishing up ancient history, but that the thing to do is get on with the job of improving our relationships in this field unencumbered by any historical albatrosses. I certainly agree with this view myself.
Nevertheless the AEC staff has been engaged for several weeks in preparing a first draft of such a White Paper. After it has been reviewed by the Chairman it will be submitted to us and to the Department of Defense for review. What emerges from that process will presumably be sent to Cherwell for his comment. The Canadians have suggested, meanwhile, that they too should be consulted on the drafting of this document, and only today have gone further to suggest that its issuance—if and when—should be a tripartite affair. We have told them that—if and when—we would of course be pleased to have it issued on a tripartite basis.
That in brief, relatively, is the situation as it stands. I think that Churchill’s reference to this matter in the House of Commons on December 17,4 particularly as regards the necessity for further review by the two governments, was essentially correct.
Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
- Reference is to the “Agreement Relating to Atomic Energy” approved by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill at Quebec on Aug. 19, 1943; for text, see Foreign Relations, The Conferences at Washington and Quebec, 1943, pp. 1117–1119.↩
- Reference is to Arthur Vandenberg, Jr., and Joe Alex Morris, eds., The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1952); see pp. 359–365.↩
- See the message from Churchill to Eisenhower, Dec. 7, 1953, p. 1289.↩
- See footnote 2, p. 1301.↩