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

IO Files: SD/A/C.1/97

Position Paper Prepared in the Division of International Security Affairs¹

top secret

[Washington,] September 12, 1947.

International Control of Atomic Energy

(Comment Paper)

the problem

What should be the United States position if and when the problem of atomic energy is raised in the General Assembly in connection with:

1. The Assembly’s consideration of the Security Council Report embodying, among other matters, a summary of the Security Council’s consideration of the First Report of the Atomic Energy Commission;

2. The Assembly’s consideration of the Second Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, if this report should be referred to it by the Security Council; or

3. The possible introduction into the General Assembly of substantial proposals dealing with the control of atomic energy.²

recommendations

1. The United States Delegation should recall the initiative taken by the United States in proposing a system of effective controls, review the efforts made in the Atomic Energy Commission to obtain agreement on the essential features of such a system, and point out the increasing insecurity resulting from the failure of atomic energy negotiations to discover common ground. In this connection it should be stated that, in the absence of Soviet acceptance of the majority views on the functions and powers of the proposed international control agency, there will be more difficulty than had been anticipated developing proposals on matters still pending before the Atomic Energy Commission. The United States Delegation should cite the refusal of the Soviet Union to accept any of the elements considered by the great majority of the Commission to be essential to such control, to make adequate counter-proposals, or to participate in many of the working groups of the Commission.

2. The United States should take the position that no action by the General Assembly is necessary at this time with respect to the status and terms of reference of the Atomic Energy Commission.

3. If any substantive proposals on atomic energy are submitted, the United States should insist that they be referred to the Atomic Energy Commission for consideration and that the reference should in no way alter the competence of the AEC as stated in Paragraph V of the Resolution of January 24, 1946. (If a substantive proposal is made which attempts to link atomic weapons with the regulation and reduction of conventional armaments, see position paper entitled “General Disarmament Including Atomic Weapons,” Document.³)

4. The United States should support any resolution requesting that the work of the Atomic Energy Commission be completed as soon as possible.

discussion

The Present Situation

The Atomic Energy Commission was established on January 24, 1946, by a resolution of the General Assembly (See Appendix A⁴). The Commission submitted its first report (Appendix B) to the Security Council on December 31, 1946, after the adjournment of the last session of the General Assembly. The General Assembly Resolution of December 14, 1946 (see pages 8–10 of Appendix B) urged that the Security Council “expedite consideration of the Reports of the Atomic Energy Commission.”

The First Report of the Atomic Energy Commission was adopted by the Commission by a vote of 10–0 with the Soviet Union and Poland abstaining. In the discussions of the Report in the Security Council, the Soviet Union introduced on February 18, 1947, certain “Amendments and Additions” (see Appendix C). The Security Council recommitted the report of the Atomic Energy Commission (S.C. Resolution of March 10, 1947, S/296, see Appendix D) for further study of all phases of the problem, the development of specific proposals as soon as possible, and, in due course, the preparation for submission to the Council of a draft treaty or treaties. It also requested a second report from the Commission before the next session of the General Assembly. Since receiving the Security Council’s directive, the work of the Commission has gone forward in two of its committees, a Working Committee (Committee 1) and Committee 2.

The Working Committee has examined the proposals submitted by the Soviet Union as “Amendments and Additions” to the First Report and has recently discussed proposals for atomic energy control presented by the Soviet Union on June 11, 1947 (see Appendix D). With minor exceptions the Working Committee has rejected the “Amendments and Additions” in that they would render ineffective the major proposals of the First Report. The majority of the Commission rejected the Soviet proposals of June 11 as not fulfilling the terms of reference of the Atomic Energy Commission. The majority also objected to the proposals in that they do not include as functions of the international control agency the management, ownership or operation of dangerous atomic activities. The Soviet proposals have also been criticized for being too vague with respect to the inspection functions of the agency.

In Committee 2 the program of work (see Appendix E) has involved the development of specific proposals, in harmony with the First Report, to be incorporated in a treaty or treaties for the control of atomic energy. Working papers on the functions of the proposed international agency (see Item 2 of Appendix E) were prepared and are included in the Commission’s Second Report. This work has proceeded with only minor Soviet participation. The greater part of the program of work of Committee 2 is unfinished. This includes the development of proposals on the organization and structure of the international agency, strategic balance, application of sanctions against violators, and the stages of transition from conditions of national control to those of predominantly international control.

The view of this Government as conveyed to the United States Representative on the Atomic Energy Commission⁵ is that: “(a) that the next report of the Atomic Energy Commission should be presented in a form that will evidence the agreement of the majority of the proposals developed under Items A.1 through A.2 of AEC/C.2/16 which will enable the Security Council to direct the Commission to complete the task of developing specific proposals on the remaining items, and (b) that at the same time it is important that the next report of the Commission should reveal with unmistakable clarity the grave and fundamental differences between the position taken by the Soviet Union on atomic energy control and that of the United States and nine other members of the Commission”.

The Atomic Energy Commission has presented its Second Report to the Security Council. Full agreement has only been possible on relatively minor issues. The continuing Soviet disagreement with the majority on fundamentals has given rise to the question whether the work of the Commission should continue or whether the Second Report should present the major issues in final form. The introduction to the Second Report (AEC/26 of 8 September 1947)⁶ states:

“It is evident that, until unanimous agreement is reached on the functions and powers of the international agency, there will be limitations on the extent to which proposals on other topics in the Summary of Principal Subjects can be worked out in detail. Clearly, much remains to be done before the final terms of a treaty or convention can be drafted. The Commission intends to proceed with the remaining topics in the summary and, at the same time, will continue its endeavors to clarify and resolve, where possible, the existing points of disagreement.”

In order that there may be no illusions regarding the kind of progress made by the Atomic Energy Commission it is important that the United States emphasize the limitations on the future work of Committee 2 in the absence of unanimous agreement on the subjects thus far developed.

Past United States Position

In United Nations discussions of atomic energy the United States has consistently adhered to the principles laid down in its original (Baruch) proposals. These principles have been accepted by the great majority of the Atomic Energy Commission in the First Report of the Commission. The United States has urged that effective international control of atomic energy is one of the prime requisites to the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security. An objective of United States foreign policy has been and continues to be the establishment of an effective, enforceable system for the international control of atomic energy. Important statements of the position the United States has taken on this subject are listed in Appendix F, with appropriate references.

Attitude of Other States

Inasmuch as the Second Report of the Atomic Energy Commission to the Security Council was approved by ten Representatives on September 11, 1947, it can be assumed that these ten States, namely, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Syria, United Kingdom, and the United States, will support any proposal in the General Assembly which is in line with the Second Report, and therefore the United States position. It may also be assumed that the Soviet Union and Poland will criticize the United States position or make recommendations contrary to the United States position in as much as they did not approve the Second Report.

Egypt, Mexico, and The Netherlands supported the First Report of the Atomic Energy Commission to the Security Council prior to leaving the Atomic Energy Commission on the 31 December 1946. There has been no indication in the past nine months that these three States no longer support an effective and adequate system for the international control of atomic energy.

No definite indication of the Soviet position in the General Assembly has been obtained. It is believed, however, that the Soviets may attempt to divert attention from their unfavorable position in the Atomic Energy Commission by introducing proposals designed to confuse atomic energy control with the problems of general disarmament and to undermine the competence of the Atomic Energy Commission. Such efforts should be vigorously resisted for the reasons more fully outlined in a separate paper on this subject.

Position of the United States in the General Assembly

United States policy as referred to in the Department’s instructions of August 11, 1947 (above, page 3), requires that the United States take no initiative to terminate negotiations for international control of atomic energy. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the United States Delegation to the General Assembly should remain silent when atomic energy is discussed. Bearing in mind the urgent need of impressing the American people with the implications of the present situation, the United States Delegation should seize every appropriate occasion for emphasizing (a) that the United States considers that the outlook for international control of atomic energy is dim; (b) that the great majority of the Atomic Energy Commission is in agreement on the essential requirements for effective international control; and (c) that fundamental differences exist between the great majority of the Commission and the Soviet Union. These differences should be cited together with the basis for the rejection of the Soviet’s counterproposals. (Refer to Mr. Osborn’s statement of June 11 proposals, Appendix 1, AEC/C.2/78 of August 26, 1947).

Assuming that the action of the Security Council on the Second Report directs the Atomic Energy Commission to continue its work in developing specific proposals, there would seem to be no necessity from the United States standpoint, for the General Assembly to take any action at this session with respect to the work of the Commission. However, the United States should support any resolution calling on the Atomic Energy Commission to complete its work as soon as possible.

If a proposal of a substantive nature is made by any member, the United States should insist that the General Assembly is not at the present time the appropriate body to consider it and should move to have any such proposal referred to the Atomic Energy Commission. It is possible that the Soviet Union may attempt to use the forum provided by the General Assembly to press once more for consideration of proposals for the abolition of atomic weapons. The conception of the abolition of atomic weapons as a separate and preliminary step to be taken prior to the conclusion of agreements embodying a system of international control is diametrically opposed to the position of this Government and the majority of the Representatives on the Atomic Energy Commission who have embodied their views on this subject in the First and Second Reports to the Security Council. The position of this Government is that the elimination of atomic weapons from national armaments is an inseparable part of a comprehensive system for the international control of atomic energy which will include effective and adequate safeguards to protect complying states against the hazards of evasion and violation. The efforts of the Soviet Union to achieve any acceptance of their proposals that atomic weapons should be destroyed at once apart from the conclusion of some type of system of controls might come to naught. The Atomic Energy Commission in its First Report to the Security Council specifically states under “C. General Findings,” paragraph 3: (See Appendix B). Thus the United States should vigorously oppose any resolution which would attempt to eliminate atomic weapons without providing for the comprehensive system as set forth in the First and Second Reports of the Atomic Energy Commission to the Security Council.

1. This paper was approved by the alternate War and Navy Members of the Executive Committee on Regulation of Armaments on September 12 and was circulated in that body as RAC D–28/1 on September 16 (Department of State Disarmament Files).
2. The matter of international control of atomic energy was not considered during the deliberations of the General Assembly’s Second Session. The General Assembly simply took note of the Report of the Security Council covering the period July 16, 1946–July 15, 1947 (United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Second Session, Supplement No. 2). Certain items of the report were considered in connection with matters on the General Assembly agenda, but atomic energy was not among them. The Security Council did not refer the Second Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, which it received on September 11, 1947 (AEC, 2nd yr., Special Suppl.), to the Second Session of the General Assembly since it itself did not consider that report in 1947. Nor did consideration of the question of international control of atomic energy originate from initiative taken within the General Assembly, that body being preoccupied with other issues.
3. SD/A/C.1/79, August 29, 1947 (RAC D–27–1, September 5), p. 619.
4. The appendices are not printed here.
5. Instruction No. 190, August 11, p. 595.
6. AEC, 2nd yr., Special Suppl.