Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Regulation of Armaments; Atomic Energy, Volume XX

86. Memorandum of a Conversation, Secretary-General Hammarskjöld’s Office, New York, December 9, 1955¹

New York, December 9, 1955

SUBJECT

• Preparatory Meeting for the Scientific Committee on Radiation²

Present were representatives of the Permanent Delegations of the Fifteen Members of the Radiation Committee. (List attached.)³

Designation of Scientists

Secretary-General Hammarskjold said he had called this meeting to inform us that he intended to mail out a letter early in the week of December 12th inviting Governments to designate scientists to participate in the Scientific Committee. He would urge that consultations be held between Governments to assure a broad representation of the relevant fields amongst the scientists designated by various Governments. He said that the United States had already designated its representative and that his remarks accordingly would not apply to the U.S. Hammarskjold said that his request for broad representation was based on the debate in the First Committee and that, to the extent that Secretariat assistance was needed in consultations, the officials of the Secretariat—Dr. Bunche, Mr. Tchernychev⁴ and himself—would be available to consult with Governments. Hammarskjold then asked for comment on this point.

In view of his mention of the U.S. decision to designate a representative immediately, I stated that Dr. Shields Warren had been designated as the U.S. representative. I said that Dr. Warren had had as broad experience in the general field of atomic energy, medicine and biological research as any individual available in the U.S. I said that, further, he would have as his alternates men of broad experience—one in the physical sciences and the other in biological research. I said that all three of the U.S. representatives had worked extensively both in private research and for the Atomic Energy Commission, and accordingly the SYG could be sure that the U.S. representation would be on a broad scientific basis. (I spoke to Hammarskjold privately about this after the meeting and told him I felt it necessary to make the statement in the light of his remark lest the impression be left with the Member Governments that the U.S. somehow had disregarded the discussion in the First Committee. Hammarskjold said that he had not intended to embarrass the U.S. and that, in fact, he had spoken to the U.K., the Soviet and Canadian representatives stating that he hoped they would be able to provide as broad a representation as the U.S.; indicating however that it might be useful if their representatives were appointed from fields other than medical research. Hammarskjold expressed the view that most of the Delegations would probably designate individuals from the medical and biological fields, since these were the areas in which most individuals had had experience. Kitahara, Japanese Observer, informed me that the Secretariat had approached the Japanese, urging that they appoint an electronics expert, arguing that knowledge in this field would be helpful in working out plans for measurement of radiation. Kitahara said the Japanese were not inclined to take this very seriously. Ramsbotham, U.K., stated he would recommend that the British reserve their designation until all other representatives had been designated in order to assure adequate representation in the various fields of science on the committee. He indicated, however, that the British probably would designate a physicist.)

In response to a question from the Indian representative, who suggested that the first meeting would probably not be held until reports had been received from Governments, Hammarskjold said he felt that the first meeting of an exploratory character to decide on working procedures and scope of the committee’s program would be desirable in the relatively near future. I supported this view.

Hammarskjold then said he intended to appoint a young scientist from one of the small countries to serve as Secretary of the Committee. He said he intended to recruit this man two or three months before the committee meets to prepare the meeting. I stated I hoped there would not be too much delay in the first meeting while waiting for recruitment of the Secretary, as I felt that the first meeting need not be primarily scientific in character. Hammarskjold then said he would have a scientific secretary on hand shortly after January 1, and that he thought one month or six weeks would be sufficient for the Secretariat preparation. (I did not raise the question of meeting early in January at this point as I had previously consulted briefly with the Australians, and British, and found that they were thinking of a meeting in late February or March. I pointed out to Ramsbotham that such a date might result in a conflict with a spring Assembly. He indicated that the U.K. had not considered this and were not firmly wedded to a February or March date. I spoke briefly to Hammarskjold after the meeting and indicated that the U.S. would favor an early meeting without indicating any particular date. He said he hoped the meeting could be held early in February.) (In a private conversation after the meeting, Hammarskjold told me that he meant by small country a country which did not have any major atomic development. He specifically excluded the U.S., the U.S.S.R., the U.K., France and Canada.)

The only other matter considered by the meeting was a question from the Delegate of Belgium, who asked whether it would be possible for an alternate to sit in the committee, since the Belgians were giving consideration to the designation as their representative of a senior medical professor, who might find it difficult to attend all of the meetings of the committee. Hammarskjold said that this would certainly be all right, and indicated that some of the meetings would [be] held in New York and some in Europe, and various Governments might wish to have alternates sit in the committee, depending on the locale of the meetings. He said there should be, however, a senior member of the committee to whom communications could be addressed and who would be responsible for the country’s work in the committee.

Comment: In his presentation to the committee the Secretary-General, while holding to his view that the members of the committee are primarily scientists and not representatives of Governments, has moved a good distance from the position which he took some days ago in the Fifth Committee.⁵ I have the impression that he is reconciled to dealing with the members of the committee as representatives of Governments.

Inasmuch as the Secretary-General stated that the secretary would prepare a program of work for the committee, the Department and AEC may wish to consider two courses of action to safeguard our position:

1. A presentation very early, and perhaps before the committee meets, of the U.S. program of work and specific suggestions.

2. An effort to obtain the nomination from a country friendly to the U.S. of a young scientist or scientists who would be qualified to be secretary of the committee. For example: Pakistan might be prepared to put forward one or more of its scientists for committee secretary. If this is to be done, prompt action would be required, and the approach to the Secretariat should be through the Delegation of the country of nationality of the young scientist. An alternative would be for the U.S. to submit informally to Ralph Bunche a list of young scientists from various countries who might be qualified for the position. Hammarskjold has in mind the travel of the secretary of the committee, prior to the first meeting, to the U.S., U.S.S.R., Canada, France, and the U.K. for brief conversations with the senior representatives of those countries on the committee.

If the U.S. has definite views on rules of procedure and operations of the committee, I would suggest that we supply these to Bunche at an early date after we have an opportunity to discuss them with perhaps the U.K., Australia and France. I would also suggest it would be useful to have preliminary discussions in Washington or New York with those members of the committee who may be expected to support U.S. positions well in advance of the first meeting of the committee.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 700.5611/12–1055. Confidential. Drafted by William O. Hall on December 10.
2. Regarding this committee’s creation, see Document 84.
3. Not printed.
4. Ralph J. Bunche and Ilya S. Tchernychev were Under Secretaries without Department in the U.N. Secretariat.
5. Reference presumably is to Hammarskjöld’s general observations on mainly administrative features of the scientific committee, which he presented as a paper to the First Committee during the debate on the draft resolution for the creation of the scientific committee. (Yearbook of the United Nations, 1955, p. 20) He may have made similar observations to the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary).