Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, General; The United Nations, Volume I

Department of State Disarmament Files

Memorandum by Mr. James M. Ludlow of the Division of International Security Affairs

confidential

[Washington,] February 12, 1947.

Memorandum on Changes in the United States Position Relating to the Regulation and Reduction of Armaments and Armed Forces From January 6 to February 12

The January 6 memorandum entitled “The Basis for United States Policy in the Security Council During the Forthcoming Consideration of the General Assembly Resolution of December 14 on the Principles Governing the General Regulation and Reduction of Armaments”,¹ in brief made the following recommendations:

1. Priority consideration should be given to the Atomic Energy report. After the Security Council has finished consideration of the report to the satisfaction of the United States, the Atomic Energy Commission should then be directed by the Security Council to start a draft convention. Following this, the matter of other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction should be taken up by the Atomic Energy Commission. In view of this order of business, no additional United Nations machinery on the regulation of armaments would be necessary for the present.

2. The postponement of consideration of the regulation and reduction of conventional armaments to a later date. The arguments proposed in favor of this were to the effect that successful controls of the atomic energy program would be essential in all regulation of armaments; that consideration of the regulation of conventional armaments by the Security Council might be detrimental to the progress of regulation of other major weapons of mass destruction and that therefore, all efforts should be made to discourage proposals for consideration of the regulation and reduction of conventional arms and armaments now although an intra-governmental organization to consider such matters should be set up. (This should also be done in connection with other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction.)

3. Negotiations on the Article 43 agreements should be expedited.

4. The withdrawal of troops should be handled by the Council of Foreign Ministers and not the Security Council, and if the problem were ever to be raised, this country’s position should be determined at that time. Information on troops at home and abroad and arms and armaments might be divulged but such information should not be deemed necessary by us. Information on arms or armaments should not be asked for or given except in response to requirements of over-all plans on the regulation and reduction of armaments as set forth in the program under 1 and 2 above.

The U.S. position on February 12 may be briefly summarized as follows:

1. Priority consideration should be given to the Atomic Energy Commission’s report. This has been publicly reiterated by the Secretary in his press conference on February 7² and by Senator Austin in his speeches of January 25, February 4,³ 8 and 11.⁴ However, the draft resolution now before the Security Council to which the United States has agreed sets no specific date for the consideration of the report, merely calling for consideration “as soon as possible”, and presumably this must be considered as placing less urgency on immediate consideration than we have hitherto insisted upon.

2. The United States is willing to begin consideration now of problems on the regulation of conventionl arms and armaments by establishing a commission for that purpose. This is in direct opposition to the position of January 6. This is supported by the U.S. Resolution of February 4, 1947 (S/264),⁵ by the draft resolution now before the Security Council, and by Senator Austin’s statement on February 4 and his speech of February 8 wherein he stated that our position does not bar consideration of problems relating to the regulation of armaments and armed forces concurrently with such other problems as the peace treaties and the Article 43 agreements.

3. Discussions and consideration on the regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces either before the Council or in the proposed commission must emphasize that collective security and safeguards are prerequisite to disarmament. This is supported by the U.S. draft proposal of February 4, 1947, by the Secretary’s press statement of February 7, 1947 and by Senator Austin’s speeches of January 25 and February 4 and 8. The matters pertaining to collective security we deem to involve the negotiation of the peace treaties and of the Article 43 agreements. This is particularly emphasized by the Secretary’s statement and by Senator Austin’s speeches of February 4 and 8.

4. In any resolution adopted by the Council there must be a clear demarcation between the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission and the proposed disarmament commission and the latter should in no way encroach on the jurisdiction of the former. This is the present basis of controversy between this country and Russia. The opposing views are outlined in the draft resolution now before the Security Council and in Senator Austin’s speeches of February 8 and 11.

5. There is no change in the position taken on January 6 relative to the withdrawal of troops and the divulging of information on troops at home and abroad and on arms and armament. The refusal to divulge information on armament was heavily underscored in Senator Austin’s speech of February 11 when he pointed out that if the Russian position were accepted it might be possible for the new commission to require information concerning our supply of atomic bombs.

1. Ante, p. 342.
2. For the text of statements by the Secretary of State at his press conference, February 7, see the Department of State Bulletin, February 16, 1947, pp. 286–287.
3. SC, 2nd yr., No. 9, pp. 150–154, or Department of State Bulletin, February 16, 1947, pp. 275–276.
4. SC, 2nd yr., No. 11, pp. 194–203.
5. See the annex to the Secretary of State’s memorandum to Acheson, January 30, and footnote 3 thereto, p. 388.