Atomic Energy files, Lot 57 D 688, “IAEA Policies”
Memorandum of Conversation, by Philip J. Farley of the Office of the Consultant to the Secretary of State for Atomic Energy Affairs
- Subject:
- Planning for International Atomic Energy Agency
- Participants:
- Mr. George P. de T. Glazebrook, Canadian Embassy
- Miss Barbara Salt, British Embassy
- Mr. Gerard C. Smith, S/AE
- Mr. P.J. Farley, S/AE
Mr. Smith said that he had asked Mr. Glazebrook and Miss Salt to come in to discuss informally plans for the formation of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In view of the close relationship of the UK, Canada, and the US both during the war and after the war through the mechanism of the Combined Policy Committee, and in view of the consultations which had taken place among the three countries prior to despatch of the March 19 note on the proposed Agency to the USSR,1 it seemed desirable for the three nations to consider informally the plans for the Agency as they affect the continuing special relationship among them. Mr. Glazebrook and Miss Salt indicated that such informal consultations appeared desirable, recognizing of course that no formal group would be established for the purpose and no agreed position would necessarily be reached.
Mr. Smith gave Mr. Glazebrook and Miss Salt copies of a preliminary outline of the proposed Agency.* He explained that the outline was a draft prepared by S/AE on the basis of the March 19 outline given the USSR, and had no official status as representing the views either of the State Department of AEC. It was hoped that the comments and suggestions of the UK and Canada might be obtained at an early date and before any US position became final, and that an interchange of ideas could be facilitated by such a preliminary unofficial outline. Mr. Smith said that the schedule envisaged by the US called for discussion of the outline of the Agency among the US, UK, and Canada during September; by about October 1, it might be desirable to discuss the outline, still in draft, with other countries principally involved, looking toward agreement on an outline by about November 15; a conference for formal [Page 1516] signature of a convention or other suitable instrument might perhaps be held in mid-January 1955.
The possibility of constituting a working group to consider plans for the Agency was discussed. Mr. Glazebrook pointed out that it might prove easier to discuss an outline or a draft convention in a group at some point rather than by correspondence among eight or more nations. It was recognized that the selection of the countries to be represented on any working group would be difficult once membership was extended beyond the eight nations† hitherto involved in consultations. It was agreed that other nations should be brought into the planning as early as possible and ways of notifying or otherwise bringing in a large number of nations were discussed. It was agreed that the question of establishment of a working group would be considered further during subsequent discussion of plans for the Agency.
Mr. Smith said that the US planned to report further on the Agency during the opening speech of the Secretary of State before the UN General Assembly, and to introduce an agenda item at that time calling for a report by the US on negotiations subsequent to the President’s proposals of December 8, 1953. Discussion of such an agenda item, both in the General Assembly and in committee, would offer a further opportunity to bring out the position of the US and its associates. Miss Salt said that she did not know at this time what position the Foreign Office might take regarding the introduction of such an agenda item; her personal view was that discussion of the I.A. in the Secretary’s speech and on other general occasions would be desirable but that an agenda item was of doubtful value. It would focus attention on the subject and perhaps lead to opposition and to hostile resolutions which might make the formation of the Agency more difficult. It was recognized that some of these difficulties might be expected to arise whether or not an agenda item was introduced. Mr. Smith asked that, if there were strong objections on the part of the UK or Canada concerning introduction of an agenda item, the State Department should be advised as soon as possible since present US plans included introduction of such an agenda item. He mentioned that the Secretary General of the UN had been advised prior to the President’s Labor Day speech that the US would report further on the subject at the General Assembly meeting.
Mr. Smith said that, as a result of progress in planning for the Agency and of Dr. Rabi’s recent trip to England and France, it was hoped that early decisions could be reached on the location, date, [Page 1517] invitations, and agenda for the international scientific conference. If possible, some details of this sort might be announced in the Secretary’s speech before the General Assembly. The most pressing question related to sponsorship of the conference. It has been considered desirable heretofore, in part for reasons of housekeeping, to request UN sponsorship of the conference. Since the UN is not to be asked to sponsor the Agency, however, it appears consistent to have the conference also sponsored by a small group of nations rather than by the UN. Mr. Smith asked that the views of the UK and Canada on this question of sponsorship be provided as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Smith said that, of the seven countries consulted concerning the plan to proceed with the Agency, agreement in principle had been received from all but Belgium. Agreement from Portugal had been received on September 7.
Mr. Smith said that the US was drawing up plans for programs of interim assistance referred to by the President on Labor Day, and that it was hoped that these could be discussed with the UK and Canada at an early date.
Mr. Glazebrook said that the stories emanating from Ottawa following the President’s Labor Day speech, which indicated that Canada had been surprised at the announcement, did not represent the thinking of the Canadian Government and he expressed regret for them. Miss Salt said that the UK had issued a press guidance at the time of the speech which was based on the August 18 memorandum2 and thus might differ in some details, although she had not yet seen a copy. The Foreign Office was planning, if asked, to say that the arrangement with Belgium was a tripartite one in which the UK was a participant and that the UK also was assisting Belgium with its reactor program.
There was discussion of the question of whether further information should be given the press at this time. Mr. Smith expressed the US feeling that facts should not be wasted but should be saved for the UN debate or other occasions where they would have maximum effect. Accordingly, the US was saying nothing further at this time except that there would be further reports and discussion at the UN General Assembly session. He suggested that the UK and Canada might take the same line, which had the advantages of providing a terminal date to satisfy the curiosity of the press and of keeping some UN flavor about the plan.