Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, National Security Affairs, Volume II, Part 2

600.0012/10–1554: Telegram

The United States Representative at the United Nations (Lodge) to the Department of State

secret
priority

New York, October 15, 1954—1 p.m.

Delga 108. For the Secretary from Lodge. Re: Peaceful uses of atomic energy.

1. As has previously been reported there is continuing and widespread interest in our plans for establishing an Atomic Energy Agency with a more than nominal relationship to the UN. Extent of enthusiasm for our program as presented in forthcoming debate may well depend on how far we are able to go with respect to UN relationship. Secretary’s memo of Sept 24¹ indicated importance working out this relationship and suggested that a “specialized” agency might be the answer. However, it seems clear that the Agency will not be set up before GA debate and therefore no relationship will be worked out during this session of GA.

2. For this reason I suggest consideration be given to the advantages of recommending to the GA the establishment of a UN comite comprising some or all of govts with whom we are now negotiating as prospective members of IAEA. Comite wld be asked to continue present negotiations for establishment of agency. GA might establish such a comite without, in my opinion, any real interference in the actual negotiations and this wld, from the start, provide adequate semblance of UN tie-up. Comite cld report to GA upon creation of agency and might, if it then seemed desirable, submit treaty creating agency to GA before ratification by national legislatures (see Delga 91 Oct 12).²

3. Seriously doubt whether the calling of a so-called “scientific” conf in and of itself adequately meets the positive and affirmative leadership requirements inherent in the program announced by the President last Dec. 3 [8]. At some stage in the development of this program such a conf might prove to be a useful thing, but it is vital that it be properly organized and managed. As so far envisaged, however, I think it wld be very difficult, if not impossible, for us to maintain our leadership and control. Unwieldly and theoretical nature of debate carried on by large body of scientists not responsible to govts wld do more harm than good at this stage. Giving the opportunity of a world forum such as this to “scientists” such as Joliot-Curie³ and a miscellaneous crew from Russia, Czechoslovakia and Hungary would scarcely advance the President’s program. Similarly, a conference of scientists could produce a situation conflicting with plans of govts negotiating for creation of agency.

4. Therefore, in the first instance, it might be desirable to have UN comite as suggested above undertake arrangements for the conf, leaving to this comite the question of timing and terms of reference. This comite wld provide desirable and necessary link between Agency as we develop it and conf.

5. In addition to the foregoing, while I do not think we should make rash promises of miracles to be accomplished overnight, nevertheless I feel that we shld offer some very definite and tangible inducement, particularly to the smaller, underdeveloped countries. This might be accomplished by authorizing the UN comite to receive and respond to comments, requests for information and requests for assistance from UN member govts.

6. I also have considerable doubt whether it is wise to give as much power as seems to be contemplated in our present draft resolution to UNSYG. I think that all of these arrangements should be within effective control of USG and the govts most closely associated with US.

Lodge

1. Not further identified.
2. See footnote 1, p. 1530.
3. Dr. Frédéric Joliot-Curie, French scientist; High Commissioner for Atomic Energy, 1946–1950; and a Communist.