USUN Files
The Deputy United States Representative on the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (Osborn) to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
Dear Senator Austin: As a result of a visit yesterday from Dr. Oppenheimer, I must advise that the views of my advisory group were not properly stated in my letter to you of August 1st.1 Dr. Oppenheimer [Page 590] feels quite strongly that the United States should not continue to take part in the development of specific proposals covering the other items on the subject list, which would in the normal course come up after September 15th, namely, staffing and organization, finance, strategic distribution, sanctions and stages.
General Groves also has doubts about our going further. Dr. Oppenheimer feels that Dr. Bacher would have agreed with him if he had been here. Dr. Oppenheimer pointed out that Mr. Conant said that he felt that somebody, presumably the United States, should make it clear that no treaty on atomic energy would be acceptable until world conditions of peace are assured.
It seemed to me that Messrs. Barnard, Tolman and Conant and General Farrell all felt we should proceed with further specific proposals unless other factors or other nations put a stop to it.
My own view is:
- (1)
- If there is to be a break with Russia it should not be made through the Atomic Energy Commission.
- (2)
- So long as any considerable number of other nations on the
Commission desire to go forward in writing specific proposals any
holding back on the part of the United States would have the
following bad results:
- a.
- Feeling on the part of friendly nations that we had gone back on our offer and on them.
- b.
- Strong propaganda by Russia that we had never intended the offer seriously.
- c.
- Loss by the American people of their present feeling that they are committed to the “American plan.” If this feeling were lost it might be difficult to recover later.
- (3)
- I do not share the fears of Dr. Oppenheimer and others that we will get into trouble if we go on to discuss questions of strategic balance and sanctions. I think the other nations will support our views as they have our position on the functions of the agency. As to stages, I have always felt that a spelling out of stages could only be done at the time the treaty was ready to go into effect.
I am advised that the State Department has prepared instructions to me on this matter, which I have not yet received. Owing to the strongly expressed views of some of our advisory group, it seemed desirable to inform you, and through you the State Department, that the matter is still being discussed here by them.
Yours sincerely,