Atomic Energy files, lot 57 D 688, “IAEA Policies”
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Consultant to the Secretary of State for Atomic Energy Affairs (Smith)1
- Subject:
- IAEA—Discussion at Luncheon Meeting
- Participants:
- Secretary Dulles
- Ambassador Lodge
- Morehead Patterson
- Mr. Key—IO
- Mr. Wainhouse—IO
- Mr. Strauss—AEC
- Mr. Barco
- Mr. Smith—S/AE
Mr. Dulles opened the discussion by saying that he had brought us together since there had been some evidence of need for coordinating [Page 1550] the various groups working on different facets of the International Agency problem.
The question was raised as to whether or not Mr. Lodge could state in his speech that the United States will hold available “x” kilograms of enriched material for projects sponsored by the Agency.2 Mr. Strauss pointed out the difficulty was that Presidential approval was necessary—it had not yet been obtained—and in addition he would like to consult with the Joint Committee on this matter in advance of their hearing about it in a public speech. Mr. Strauss indicated that he thought the necessary clearance would be obtained, and it was agreed that Mr. Lodge might make the reference in a subsequent speech.
Mr. Smith pointed out that this still left the question of whether Mr. Lodge could say that the United States would hold this material for disposal by the Agency or for disposal by the United States Government. This depends upon whether we should seek United States participation in the work of the Agency by a treaty and rely on section 121 of the Act, or by an international arrangement and rely on section 124 and 123 of the Act. Mr. Smith pointed out the restrictions which would obtain if the latter course was pursued. There was discussion as to whether or not the necessity for a finding under section 123 that any specific cooperation by the United States must promote its defense, would prevent effective cooperation with neutral nations, for example. Mr. Strauss pointed out his belief that the Congress would be very anxious about the security aspects of any international plan and it would be well to make a very cautious start. If the limitations of section 123 prove too burdensome, the new legislative authority could then be sought. Mr. Smith suggested that proceeding under section 124 and 123 might be tantamount to a United States position that it would only cooperate in the International Agency with nations friendly to it. He pointed out that section 123 was a very restrictive channel and had been made so in the light of its possible use for transmitting military information to foreign countries and regional defense associations. He pointed out that NSC 5431 had directed the Department of State and the AEC to proceed along two lines: (1) bilateral cooperation, and (2) multilateral cooperation, and that apparently we were losing sight of the second direction.3
Mr. Strauss pointed out that even in the case of research reactors there was a physical danger since they had produced quantities of isotopes which, if improperly handled, could constitute an international hazard. Mr. Strauss pointed out that in his judgment [Page 1551] true multilateral cooperation was contingent on substantial Russian participation in the Agency. Absent that, he felt that at least in the beginning we should keep close control.
On the matter of the conference, Mr. Strauss pointed out how it had been proposed by him in a speech last April after he had obtained the approval of the President. If it was to be UN sponsored, the world would lose sight of its original Eisenhower sponsorship and we would lose a measure of credit to which the United States was entitled. It seemed generally agreed that this decision was beyond recall.
Mr. Smith pointed out that a resolution concerning the conference, if joined to a resolution concerning the Agency, would tend to confuse the fact that the Agency was to be separate from the United Nations as opposed to the conference which is to be a creature of the United Nations. [The Agency (although planned to be a specialized agency of the UN) was to be separate from the UN as opposed to the conference which was to be a creature of the UN.]4 Ambassador Lodge agreed and suggested that there only be a reference to the negotiations looking to the Agency in the resolution on the conference and that the UN not sponsor a resolution concerning the Agency.
A separate record of this meeting prepared by Wainhouse of IO is in Secretary’s Memoranda of Conversation, lot 64 D 199.
Of the participants listed below, James W. Barco was Senior Adviser for Political Affairs, U.S. Mission at the United Nations.
↩- See telegram Delga 158 from New York, Oct. 29, p. 1545.↩
- Reference is to NSC 5431/1, Aug. 13; for text, see p. 1488.↩
- Brackets in the source text.↩