Atomic Energy files, lot 57 D 688, “IAEA Policies”
Memorandum for the File, by the Consultant to the Secretary of State for Atomic Energy Affairs (Smith)
On Wednesday, August 19, I delivered to the following two copies of an informal prospectus outlining U.S. thinking on implementing the President’s pool idea—a copy of which is attached:1
- Mr. Glazebrook—Canada
- Miss Salt—United Kingdom
- Mr. Fischer—South Africa2
- Mr. Martin—France
- Mr. Potier—Portugal3
- Mr. Carlier—Belgium4
- Mr. Lawrey—Australia5
I sounded out Mr. Glazebrook very informally on whether or not Canada would be interested in having the International Agency located there—perhaps in Toronto. Mr. Glazebrook indicated that he thought this would be quite welcome.
Miss Salt of the British Embassy, after reading the paper, felt that it would fit in with her Government’s thinking.
Mr. Fischer of the South African Embassy indicated that it would be difficult to meet the suggested deadline (an answer next week) because so many of the members of his Government were away from the Capital. He inquired as to the relation of this Agency to the UN. I emphasized that the relationship would be tenuous. He wanted to know if bilaterals would be permitted and was advised in the affirmative.
Mr. Martin of the French Embassy asked if any further word had been received from the Russians since the April 27 note. I stated “no.”
Mr. Potier of Portugal asked if it would be necessary to send this through the NATO pouch, and I told him in view of the urgency of the matter I thought that the Portuguese diplomatic pouch would be a safe means of transmission. He agreed to try to get his Government’s answer next week.
Mr. Carlier stated that it might be difficult to get an answer by next week, but that he would try to get Robiliart’s reaction expressed [Page 1504] to the American Embassy in Brussels at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Lawrey of the Australian Embassy stated that his Government was looking forward to cooperating bilaterally with the United States Government, but indicated no objection to the proposed implementation of the pool idea.
I told each of these people that we were working on a draft treaty which would be delivered to their Governments at an early date. The reason for the urgency here is that it is expected that the President would make an announcement of this general plan at an early date, and we would like to be able to say that the countries principally involved had concurred in principle.
- The attachment does not accompany the source text. Presumably, the document in question is the statement of the U.S. position, supra.↩
- D.A.V. Fischer, Second Secretary, South African Embassy.↩
- Augusto Potier, Counselor, Portuguese Embassy.↩
- Georges Carlier, Counselor, Belgian Embassy.↩
- L.J. Lawrey, First Secretary, Australian Embassy.↩