396.1 GE/6–2354: Telegram
The United States Delegation to the Department of State
priority
Secto 512. Reference Tosec 460.1 At yesterday’s restricted meeting Chauvel alluded to paper transmitted Secto 497,2 but stated he would withhold this “pending implementation June 19 decision on military talks”. Have no reason believe Chauvel attempting substitute this paper for June 19 conference decision. My understanding is Chauvel [Page 1230] merely attempting draw up a form of agenda to provide framework for conference discussion while paying some lip service to Chinese proposal. It does not seem to me his paper endeavors to register any conference agreement on topics mentioned as did Chinese Communist proposal June 16 which we will of course continue oppose. I see no objection going along with Chauvel on this, and would appreciate Department’s approval.
Yesterday’s meeting Chauvel also alluded to his proposal for “ad hoc commissions” (Secto 4963) but did not table any proposal (reference Tosec 4614). However he did orally suggest the possibility of committee of nine, the sole purpose of which would be assemble “abundant crop of proposals” before conference on matters of control together with observations made by various delegations this subject and present sort of summary working documents, which would facilitate further discussions.
In view Chauvel absence at Bern today, have not been able discuss matter further with him, but Bonsal saw Roux this morning and reiterated our reluctance approve establishment of subcommittees in absence clear terms of reference reflecting agreement on principles achieved at conference itself. Bonsal suggested task Chauvel had in mind might better be performed by one delegation and presented as working document to conference. Roux said would discuss with Chauvel having small group representatives of few principally interested delegations perform task. Roux stressed French thought is not create any form permanent subcommittee, but rather assign group experts task which would be accomplished between regular meeting of conference by ad hoc experts, which would then be dissolved.
From my previous conversations with him, I believe Chauvel‘s motivation to be: (1) He has available junior staff member highly competent control matters who cannot directly participate regular restricted sessions but who could represent French delegation at lower level committee; (2) Chauvel himself is unfamiliar with large amount of material which various delegations have submitted and genuinely believes an agreed analysis presentation of material would be helpful; (3) Chauvel believes appointment ad hoc commission perform more or less specific task would give impression of activity and progress which not produced by repetitious discussions at restricted sessions.
I see little utility but no particular objection to such ad hoc committee if insisted upon by France. While as practical matter smaller group of “principally interested delegations” would probably be able work more effectively, if we did not participate danger that elements [Page 1231] of control which we consider important might be dropped in committee report. Therefore am inclined believe on balance preferable we participate if clearly understood committee job collating and recording only, and not decision-making.
Please instruct.5
I am not clear on whether Chauvel will continue push for “committee of experts” on more substantive aspects control, but in view his anxiety get his junior staff expert work on this subject believe it likely he would do so. I strongly feel referral to committee in absence of agreement on essential principles very dangerous and will continue oppose.