Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 1

IO Files: US(P)/A/C.1/42

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Howard C. Johnson, Adviser, United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly

secret

[Paris, September 29, 1948.]

Summary of Meeting Held in the Office of the Canadian Delegation, September 29, 1948, 11 a. m.

Subject: Atomic Energy and Armaments

Participants:	[Mr. Osborn	—United States Delegation]
	Mr. Johnson
	General McNaughton	—Canadian Delegation
	Mr. Holmes
	Sir Alexander Cadogan	—United Kingdom Delegation
	Mr. Falla
	Mr. Allen
	M. de Rose	—French Delegation
	M. van Langenhove1	—Belgium Delegation
	L. Rolin2
	Dr. Urdaneta3	—Colombian Delegation
	Dr. Wei4	—Chinese Delegation
	Dr. Arce5	—Argentine Delegation
	Dr. van Roijen6	—Netherlands Delegation
	(Reporter)	—Brazilian Delegation

General McNaughton explained the initiative taken by the Canadian Delegation in this manner; that Canada moved the resolution in the Security Council referring the question to the Assembly and hence had taken the initiative in calling this meeting today. He indicated that the Canadian Delegation wished to carry its knowledge and convictions on the subject of atomic energy to the General Assembly. He indicated the belief that the Soviet Union ultimately would have to accept the Atomic Energy Commission proposal and that he did not wish to make it more difficult to bring the Soviet bloc in. He hoped that all members of the Atomic Energy Commission could agree upon joint sponsorship of a General Assembly resolution approving their work. He also expressed the hope that all of the members of the Atomic Energy Commission majority could help in carrying the plan to other members. Mr. Osborn spoke of the endless efforts of the members of the majority and the frustration in the Atomic Energy Commission as the result of the Soviet tactics. He stated that the majority had worked informally together in a spirit of closest cooperation. He stated that as long as 18 months ago the Department of State had become convinced that the Soviet Union was not serious about atomic energy control and was using the Atomic Energy Commission as a propaganda forum only. But at that time other delegates decided to carry the work further and we were glad to do so with them. However, by this spring all the delegates of the major countries came to the conclusion that there was a complete impasse and that it was necessary to bring the matter to the General Assembly in the way now planned. The remaining items involved questions of national interest and are largely political; for instance, the United States position on stages, if written under present conditions of Soviet preparation for war would necessarily be very stiff, while if the Soviet had shown real evidences of world cooperation they might be quite different. He said it was our feeling that the General Assembly should approve the plan resulting from this earnest work of the Atomic Energy Commission or repudiate it.

Mr. de Rose indicated that he had no reluctance in taking part in the debate but that we should have a carefully planned method of handling the debate. He suggested that various delegations divide up the task of explaining the proposals; one for instance might explain ownership; another the functions of the Agency, etc. He suggested that further meetings of this group be held in an effort to carefully plan the debate in Committee I.

Dr. Wei said that he would state his conviction on the plan in-presenting the case to Committee I; that the main purpose was to obtain support of the General Assembly for the UN proposals, and to understand that there was no alternative, and that the Soviet propaganda was wholly untrue.

Dr. van Roijen indicated that his country would support joint sponsorship. He indicated great ignorance on the part of most countries and emphasized the importance of explaining generally the extent to which this plan has been worked out in detail. He agreed with de Rose’s views on procedure and stated that it would be necessary to work out agreement on the actual wording of a resolution.

Dr. Rolin who will represent Belgium in the debate, then spoke. (Mr. van Langenhove had previously advised us that Dr. Rolin, President of the Belgian Senate, had just come in and was not yet briefed on atomic energy.) Dr. Rolin indicated that in his personal view the key to the world political situation was disarmament—especially atomic energy control. He felt that Soviet fear of atomic weapons may be the cause of the Soviet attitude. He indicated that something must be done to bring to the public the fact that the majority have agreed upon a real plan. He stated, however, that the Atomic Energy Commission members should consider amendments, giving hope that agreement will be possible and to prevent giving the impression that the majority opposed any change. It is better, he said, to give the impression that we are ready for open discussion rather than give an ultimatum to the Soviet Union from the start. It was his feeling that the Security Council resolution should not be the starting point for drafting a General Assembly resolution which, in his view, must be meaningful in itself. It was also his view that the Third Report was too negative in speaking of the impasse; that the General Assembly must make possible a last effort to reach agreement; He was convinced that nothing more could be done but that we should not accept the recommendation of the Third Report.

Mr. Arce expressed the view that we should commence our discussions by acceptance of the fact that the Soviet Union does not want agreement. He stated that she is working on the bomb and does not want others to see what she is doing. He felt that the United States should say that it must hold the weapon to save the world against the time when the Soviet Union would get it. He felt it important to get a great majority of the General Assembly to approve the Atomic Energy Commission proposals. He felt that in Committee I the approach of Mr. de Rose was sound but that in the General Assembly itself there should be a reply to the speeches of the Soviet bloc. The plan must be explained in simple terms in Committee I, and the discussion must terminate by the approval of a resolution. In his opinion, the Latin American Delegations will support the plan. (He later asked Mr. Osborn to have the United States contact the Caribbean countries.) In his view, the Vyshinsky resolution⁷ was pure bluff, introduced for the purpose of confusion, and had no relation to the Atomic Energy Commission proposal. These should be kept completely separate. It was his suggestion that, in Committee I, four or five delegations who best knew the proposals should take the lead.

Sir Alexander Cadogan stated that it was important for the majority to continue to stand together. He indicated that although the Security Council resolution was negative, that the United Kingdom thought it its duty to show what the situation was, and that continuing would be deluding the public. He stated, however, that the resolution had a positive objective—that the General Assembly might give some impulse to the question. It was his view that Soviet interventions would make it difficult to carry out de Rose’s plan for dividing up the presentation and expressed the view that several governments would have to give a complete presentation at the beginning. He felt that a certain amount of repetition was necessary.

Dr. Urdaneta agreed with the comments of Dr. Arce and Sir Alexander Cadogan. He expressed the view that if three points were made clear the Latin American countries would give their full support: (a) The Soviet position; (b) if we can prevent confusing the consideration of the Atomic Energy proposals by direct discussion of the Soviet proposal and (c) that the plan does not constitute intervention in domestic affairs.

The Reporter from Brazil stated that Brazil would probably have no objection to joint sponsorship.

General McNaughton expressed the view that the resolution must be more understandable than the technical resolution of the Security Council and stated he would frame such a resolution and circulate it privately.

Dr. Rolin expressed the view that the resolution should not be introduced at the start but after a general discussion. He agreed with General McNaughton that the discussion on atomic energy sfypuld be kept entirely separate from the discussion of Vyshinsky’s resolution. General McNaughton then stated that he assumed there was a consensus that the debate on these questions should be kept separate, and that we must insist that Committee I itself and not a Subcommittee discuss the atomic energy matter.

Mr. Arce suggested that General McNaughton show the resolution, in the first instance, to the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, Belgium and Canada, and then to the other members of the Atomic Energy Commission majority. This suggestion was approved.

Mr. Osborn stated that he would send 10 copies of the pamphlet prepared in the United States, containing the Atomic Energy Commission proposals, to each Delegation of the AEC majority and that the French were printing, in French, a somewhat similar pamphlet. He suggested the advisability of dividing up the work of the educating of the various member nations by the members of this group.

Dr. Wei stated that it was important that existing bombs be destroyed but that it was more important to destroy the mechanism for making more bombs.

It was agreed:

a. That General McNaughton would prepare a draft resolution for submission in the first instance to the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Belgium, and then to other members of the group.

b. That certain members of the Committee would divide up the task of educating other United Nations members, and

c. That another meeting would be held in the near future.

H. C. Johnson

1. Fernand van Langenhove, Member of the Belgian Delegation; Permanent Belgian Representative at the United Nations.
2. Henri Rolin, Member of the Belgian Delegation; President of the Belgian Senate.
3. Roberto Urdaneta, Arbeláez, Chairman of the Colombian Delegation; Permanent Colombian Representative at the United Nations.
4. Hsioh-ren Wei, Adviser, Chinese Delegation.
5. José Arce, Member of the Argentine Delegation; Permanent Argentine Representative at the United Nations.
6. J. H. van Roijen, Member of the Netherlands Delegation; Netherlands Ambassador in Canada.
7. For text, see telegram Delga 117, September 25, p. 431.