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

Department of State Disarmament Files

Minutes of a Meeting of the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy, Washington, September 8, 1947, 10:30 a.m.

Washington, September 8, 1947, 10:30 a.m.

secret

• Present
  • state
    • Secretary Marshall
    • Mr. Rusk
    • Mr. Gullion
    • Mr. McWilliams
    • Mr. Moseley, Secretary (SWNCC)
  • war
    • Secretary Royall
    • Colonel Hamilton
    • Colonel Munson
  • navy
    • Under Secretary Sullivan
    • Assistant Secretary Kenney
    • Rear Admiral Wooldridge
  • aec
    • Dr. Bacher
    • Mr. Volpe

I. Proposed U.S. Position on Documents of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission¹

decision

Approval of the Atomic Energy Commission documents. (AEC/C.2/36, Rev. 2, AEC/C.2/37, Rev. 2, AEC/C.2/38, Rev. 2, AEC/C.2/39, Rev. 2, AEC/C.2/44, Rev. 2, AEC/C.2/61, Rev. I.² The Committee was informed at the meeting that AEC/C.2/37, Rev. 2 had been revised to satisfy the exception to certain provisions of this paper originally taken by the Executive Committee on the Regulation of Armaments.)

implementing action

State Department (Mr. Gullion) to advise Mr. Osborn, U.S. Representative on the UN Atomic Energy Commission, of the Committee’s action.

discussion

Secretary Marshall referred to the working papers of the UN Atomic Energy Commission dealing with various aspects of international control of atomic energy which have been referred to the Secretaries of State, War and Navy and the Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission for approval by the Executive Committee on the Regulation of Armaments. He said that the State Department had already approved these papers and he understood that they were acceptable to the Navy and the US Atomic Energy Commission but that Secretary Royall had certain reservations concerning the documents which he would like to discuss. He indicated that Mr. Osborn had to have immediate instructions regarding the U.S. position on these papers.

Secretary Royall said that he had two general misgivings with respect to these papers, one of which had already been clarified. He said that at first he had been uncertain whether the substance of these documents extended our position beyond the Baruch plan, but that he is now convinced that they do not. However, his other misgiving was whether it was proper that we should take any action at all in connection with these papers. He said that he understood that the Russians had indicated that they would not take any action on these documents, and therefore this might be a good opportunity to adopt the position that we would stop any further consideration of the problem in the UN Commission. He said that he believed that we must now determine whether we have to withdraw the original proposal of the Baruch plan or agree to do nothing further about it from now on.

Mr. Sullivan said that he shared Secretary Royall’s misgivings. He added that he was fearful that if the report was approved by us at this stage and generally accepted by the UN, he wondered what would happen if the Senate refused to ratify the agreement in treaty form.

Dr. Bacher said that it was his understanding that the documents were consistent with the original Baruch proposals, containing some amplification of detail, and that he saw no objection to approving them.

Mr. Rusk said that the problem before the Committee could be divided into two parts: the first is the more immediate problem of approving the documents of the working groups of the UN Atomic Energy Commission and secondly, there was the question of what position toward international control the U.S. should take from now on as a result of the situation arising from the failure to reach agreement in the UNAEC. He indicated that the documents in question would constitute the main part of the Commission’s forthcoming report, which would be an interim report showing a clear division in the Commission. Ten nations, including the US, supported the proposals contained in the documents under discussion, with only the Soviet Union and Poland dissenting. It was the hope of the US delegation to make the submission of this report an occasion for demonstrating the solidarity of the majority. Under its working schedule the Commission still had to consider a number of important subjects, such as the staging of the transition from national to international control if it was to fulfill its mandate to work out specific proposals. It was nevertheless planned to point out in the report that there would be difficulties in developing specific proposals on subjects yet to be discussed because of failure to agree on the earlier topics on the work schedule, i.e., the functions and attributes of the international control agency. He indicated that Secretary Royall’s fundamental points regarding our future position toward agreement on international atomic energy control are now being given active consideration by Mr. Kennan’s planning group and others. He pointed out that it was planned to ask for a resurvey of our original position in light of developments. He said that he favored our going ahead and approving these documents pending a resurvey of our entire position.

Secretary Royall asked just what reasons there would be for our [not] stopping negotiations right at this point.

Mr. Gullion replied that there was general agreement among those who had been discussing the problem at working level that the onus for a break ought never to be placed on this country. Moreover, there was no doubt that these majority proposals before this Commission were of American inspiration—and we had exerted great effort to preserve a solid front among the UNAEC nations opposed to the Soviet Union and Poland. In the last week there had been particular difficulty in keeping Britain and Brazil in line. We were committed by the whole course of negotiation thus far to follow through in putting these working papers to a vote and in completing the effort to draw up specific proposals for atomic energy control. A reversal now would be inconceivable. If we were to break off now, we would not be supported by the other nations now behind us in the majority group of ten.

Mr. Volpe said that in view of the fact that the Russians have refused to participate in the working groups, approval of these documents by 10 nations would show up the Russians in their true light.

Mr. Sullivan said that he agreed that we should take advantage at this time of indicating the underlying differences between our position and that of the Russians.

Mr. Rusk pointed out that our present policy as indicated in the Baruch plan, as well as in statements of the President, is that we favor the international control of atomic energy. He said that approval of the documents in question would in no way depart from our commitments under our present policy.

Secretary Marshall called attention to the exception to one Atomic Energy Commission document (AEC/C.2/37, Rev. 2) taken by the Executive Committee on the Regulation of Armaments.

Mr. Gullion said that word had been received from Mr. Osborn by telephone that agreement had been reached to amend this particular document in such a way that it met the U.S. objections.

Secretary Marshall said that in view of this development it was understood that the Committee need not consider this particular provision of that document, and it was assumed that it was now in satisfactory form. Secretary Marshall cited the importance of our retaining the support of other friendly member nations of the UN Atomic Energy Commission, particularly as several of these countries contained the raw materials from which atomic energy is derived.

Secretary Royall said that he appreciated the importance of retaining the support and cooperation of such countries as England, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands and that he was agreeable to approving the documents. He added that he believed we should start immediately to reconsider our entire position towards international control. Mr. Gullion said that this was now being done and that the Kennan group would soon make a report available.

1. With respect to subsequent consideration of this subject by the three Secretaries, see the minutes of their meeting of September 11, p. 838.
2. These documents, slightly revised, constituted Part II of the Second Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, September 11, the Report’s specific proposals; for text, see AEC, 2nd yr., Special Suppl., pp. 12–74.