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

Eisenhower Library, Eisenhower papers, Whitman file

Memorandum of Discussion at the 210th Meeting of the National Security Council, Thursday, August 12, 1954¹

top secret
eyes only

August 12, 1954

[Extract]

Present at this meeting were the President of the United States, presiding; the Vice President of the United States; the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Defense; the Director, Foreign Operations Administration; and the Director, Office of Defense Mobilization. Also present were the Acting Secretary of the Treasury; the Secretary of Commerce (for Item 1); the Director, Bureau of the Budget; the Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (for Item 4); the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force (for Items 5 and 6); General Twining for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Vice Admiral Gardner for the Chief of Naval Operations, and General Pate for the Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps (for Items 5 and 6); Robert R. Bowie, Department of State (for Items 1, 2 and 3); Marshall Smith, Department of Commerce (for Item 1); Walter S. Delany, Foreign Operations Administration (for Item 1); the Director of Central Intelligence; the Assistant to the President; Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to the President; the Executive Secretary, NSC; and the Coordinator, NSC Planning Board Assistants.

There follows a summary of the discussion at the meeting and the main points taken.

. . . . . . .

4. Cooperation With Other Nations in the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy (NSC 5431; Memo for NSC from the Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, subject: “Development of Nuclear Power”, dated December 11, 1953)²

Mr. Cutler noted that NSC 5431 had been prepared by a committee established by the NSC Planning Board consisting of representatives of AEC (chairman), the Departments of State and Defense, and CIA. He said the paper dealt with two problems—developing a policy for the peaceful uses of atomic energy abroad, and developing the principles of the President’s proposal of December 8, 1953, to the UN for the establishment of an International Atomic Energy Agency. Mr. Cutler felt that NSC 5431 lacked the inspiration of the President’s great speech, possibly because the USSR thus far had refused to participate in carrying out the President’s proposal. Mr. Cutler noted that Admiral Strauss was desirous that discussion of this problem be kept very secret, in order not to complicate Congressional action on amendment of the Atomic Energy Act. Mr. Cutler then read the general considerations and courses of action contained in NSC 5431.

Admiral Strauss said that the two great objectives of the President’s December 8 proposal had been to extend the peaceful uses of atomic energy throughout the world and to reduce the weapon potential of fissionable material by contributions to a pool. NSC 5431 had been prepared to implement the first of these objectives. Admiral Strauss called particular attention to paragraph 14, relating to negotiations with Belgium. He said that regardless of the over-all scheme, negotiations with Belgium were essential because of the importance of the fissionable material obtained from the Belgian Congo. We had contracted to help Belgium build a power reactor. He felt that the amount of U–235 which we would release for use abroad was not excessive and, indeed, as CIA had pointed out [memo for DCI, dated August 9, informally distributed to the Planning Board],³ might be regarded by some countries as too small. Admiral Strauss, however, felt that this amount was not altogether insignificant as a beginning.

Admiral Strauss then said he felt it would be essential to add a “recovery” or “recapture” paragraph to NSC 5431. He explained that after fuel elements have been in the pile for some time, fission byproducts (“clinkers”) accumulate in sufficient quantity to stop the reaction unless they are taken out and reprocessed. Such reprocessing produces plutonium, an important weapon material. Therefore, he felt that the U.S. must stipulate that these by-products be returned to the U.S. for reprocessing and that we would retain the plutonium. He admitted that this would be a vulnerable stipulation in the sense that it could be alleged by the Russians that we were merely farming out uranium in order to get more plutonium produced. However, the legislation now in Congress would provide for Government recovery of fissionable material released to U.S. industry, and he felt that foreign countries would have to be treated on the same basis.

The President agreed that we should, in our negotiations with other countries, provide for regaining fission by-products. He thought we need not mention plutonium specifically; but we should plan to keep it when we got the by-products back in this country. He asked Secretary Dulles why we had to publish the terms of atomic energy agreements with other countries.

Mr. Cutler said that Agreements For Cooperation would be public documents because the proposed revisions of the Atomic Energy Act provide that proposed agreements must lay before the Joint Committee of the Congress for a period of 30 days while Congress is in session.

The President said that we didn’t have to put everything we wanted to do in the agreement. We could simply provide that when the fissionable material wears out the foreign government can turn it in and get a new batch.

Secretary Wilson thought we should not emphasize plutonium but provide for recovery of all the by-products.

Secretary Dulles expressed agreement with the President’s remarks. He felt that the policy in NSC 5431 was an important step forward, even though it lacked some of the luster of the President’s December 8 proposal. Referring to paragraph 9, Secretary Dulles proposed that the President should make the initial announcement of U.S. plans for an International Atomic Energy Agency at the time of breaking ground for a new reactor and prior to the convening of the UN General Assembly on September 21. Secretary Dulles said he could follow this up with another statement. He felt that another Presidential speech before the UN would not be desirable at this time.

Secretary Dulles then asked how much emphasis should be placed on affiliation of this program with the UN. He felt that some connection was indispensable, but that too close a tie would result in criticism, especially in Congress, which would say that the USSR was getting all the benefits indirectly through its membership in the UN. He felt the International Atomic Energy Agency should be under the control of officials not chosen by the UN, but should perhaps make periodic reports to the UN. The connection between the Agency and the UN might be similar to the connection between the World Bank and the UN.

Secretary Dulles then called attention to paragraph 8, which provides that maximum psychological advantage should be taken from U.S. actions in the atomic energy field. Secretary Dulles thought it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of U.S. appearance before the world as a peaceful state. Propaganda picturing us as warmongers on account of our atomic capabilities has done incalculable harm.

The President wondered whether any association of the Agency with the UN was necessary. Could not the Agency be a separate organization merely reporting its accomplishments to the UN? Secretary Dulles replied in the affirmative, and added that such reports would not contain technical atomic energy information.

Governor Stassen said he assumed the President’s December 8 proposal still stood. He thought we could not go too slow in carrying forward the policy for the peaceful uses of atomic energy, or we might wake up some day and find that the Soviets had offered to build a power reactor in Italy or India. The President pointed out that power reactors produced weapon-grade material. Secretary Wilson said it was possible to use in a power reactor either a rich material which had weapon significance or a lower grade material which did not have such significance. Mr. Cutler pointed out that the policy in NSC 5431 did not propose the use abroad of U.S. weapon-grade material.

The President referred to the blank space in paragraph 10, and said that no figure should be inserted therein. Secretary Dulles asked whether the figure would appear in the Presidential statement. The President said by no means. Mr. Cutler noted that 50 kilograms of U–235 of less than weapon quality was to be earmarked for use abroad. We thought the figure might be mentioned only in the NSC minutes copy⁴ of the paper. The President said that paragraph 10 should say that we would earmark a reasonable amount of U–235 for use abroad. There was no need for the figure to be in any copy. Secretary Dulles proposed that paragraph 10 should begin “Earmark initially”.

Secretary Wilson asked what would be the dollar value of one kilogram of the material referred to in paragraph 10. Admiral Strauss said about $50,000.

Mr. Cutler said that the amount of U–235 to be earmarked could be understood and recorded only in the original records of the NSC. The President agreed, and added that he didn’t want the Alsops publishing the figure.

Mr. Cutler called attention to the alternatives in paragraph 13 as to sponsorship of the International Scientific Conference. Admiral Strauss felt this matter should be left to the Secretary of State. Secretary Dulles noted that the Conference, while it should still be held, had lost some of its original purpose.

Mr. Cutler then read a proposed new paragraph 15, designed to incorporate the “recovery” provision proposed by Admiral Strauss. The President said that the main point was to get used fissionable material back in our possession. Governor Stassen hoped that it was understood that recovery by the U.S. would be “for peaceful purposes”. Admiral Strauss said that it was necessary to include in the proposed new paragraph a clause indicating that one of the reasons for recovery of fission by-products would be to obviate the need for reprocessing facilities in other countries.

As a sidelight on the “recovery” paragraph, Secretary Dulles noted that Molotov had argued that our atomic energy plan would increase the amount of fissionable material available for war.

Mr. Cutler noted that a committee consisting of representatives of State, Defense, AEC and CIA would prepare the statement of policy called for in new paragraph 15. The President wondered whether it would be necessary for the committee to report back to the Council until it felt that we were ready to take the next step.

The National Security Council:⁵

a. Discussed the reference report on the subject in the light of oral views expressed by the Secretary of State and the Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.

b. Adopted the statement of policy contained in NSC 5431, subject to the following changes:

(1) Paragraph 4: In the second sentence, substitute for the words “would be associated” the words “might be loosely affiliated”.

(2) Paragraph 9: Revise to read as follows:

“9–a. Arrange for the President or the Secretary of State to make a statement, at an appropriate time, not later than the convening of the UN General Assembly on September 21, relative to U.S. plans for the organization of the International Atomic Energy Agency, described in b.

“b. Take necessary steps to proceed with the organization of an International Atomic Energy Agency, which may be affiliated with or report its accomplishments to the United Nations.”

(3) Paragraph 10: Revise the beginning of this paragraph to read: “Earmark initially a reasonable amount of U–235 of less than weapon quality.…”

(Note: The approximate amount agreed upon at the meeting is recorded only in the original records of the National Security Council.)⁶

(4) Paragraph 11: Add at the end of this paragraph the words “which do not involve U.S. funds for such construction.”

(5) Insert a new paragraph 15, renumbering the present paragraph as 16; the new paragraph to read as follows:

“15. In every case where the U.S. provides to another country fissionable material for research or power reactors, whether by gift, lease, or sale, the U.S. should seek to reserve the right to regain such fissionable material after usage in such other country’s reactor, in order to reprocess such material and obtain all the by-products therefrom for peaceful purposes, and in order to obviate the necessity of creating reprocessing facilities in such other country.”

(6) Subparagraph 13–a: Revise to read as follows:

“a. The Agency should be an international organization, which may be affiliated with or reports accomplishments to the United Nations.”

Note: NSC 5431, as amended, approved by the President; circulated as NSC 5431/1; and referred to the Secretary of State and the Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, for appropriate implementation, advising with the Operations Coordinating Board in order to ensure that proposed actions in this field result in maximum psychological advantage to the U.S. pursuant to paragraph 8 of NSC 5431/1. The action in paragraph 16 of NSC 5431/1 transmitted to the Planning Board to prepare the statement of policy referred to, utilizing the special committee representing State, Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission, and CIA which prepared NSC 5431.

. . . . . . .

Marion W. Boggs

1. Drafted by Marion W. Boggs, Coordinator of the National Security Council Board of Assistants, on Aug. 13.
2. NSC 5431, Aug. 6, 1954, is not printed. (S/S–NSC files, lot 63 D 351, NSC 5431 Series) For the revised and approved version, NSC 5431/1, Aug. 13, see infra. For the memorandum of Dec. 11, 1953, see p. 1296.
3. Not found in Department of State files. Brackets in the source text.
4. Minutes not identified.
5. Paragraphs a–b constitute NSC Action No. 1202, Aug. 12, 1954. (S/S–NSC files, lot 66 D 95, “NSC Actions”)
6. The “original records” have not been identified.