Department of State Atomic Energy Files
The Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy (Hickenlooper) to the Secretary of State
My Dear Mr. Secretary: A short time ago I learned, and my Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was informed, of the secret agreement entered into at the Quebec Conference between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister’ Churchill for the sharing of uranium from the Belgian Congo and other parts of the world with the British and touching the use of atomic weapons. I assure you that I was shocked and astounded by the information, and I am sure that other members of the Committee were similarly impressed. I am aware of the arguments expressed in support of this action, but I cannot agree that they were sound. In fact, I believe that the agreement was ill-advised, and its form, more in the nature of a treaty than of a simple memorandum, is disturbing. I asked Senator Vandenberg1 to take this matter up with you or the President or both in his discretion, and he has done this some time ago.
I understand that up to V-J Day the entire available uranium supply came to this country, but beginning sometime thereafter, Great Britain has stock-piled her share in the British Isles, and it now constitutes a considerable amount. In addition, other sources within the British Empire have not been made available to us. I am convinced that Britain’s arguments for the use of this material for the production of power are now, and will continue to be for many years to come, only wishful thinking; efficient power development from this source is remote and its progress will probably be measured by decades rather than in terms of a few years. In other words, the present stock pile in Britain and future accumulations will not be needed there for a long [Page 834] period of time and will continue to be very attractive “bait” for some other nation or nations. It could easily become a target. The amount presently stored in Britain is sufficient to cause great concern.
Britain is now asking for a review and a rearrangement of her financial affairs with us.2 No doubt, this matter will be seriously considered by us in the immediate future. I am firmly of the opinion that the uranium now in Britain and her future acquisitions must be brought to this continent for storage, perhaps in the nature of collateral for any additional credits, but primarily as a matter of security. In addition, the Quebec Agreement must be mutually rescinded. A new and more equitable agreement may, possibly, thereafter be in order, but the present agreement, in view of all circumstances, is intolerable.
If our country is expected to use its strength, resources, etc., in a tremendous effort to stabilize the world, and incidentally pull British chestnuts out of the fire, then I think we should have all of the implements of strength readily and securely available to us. Uranium is one potent means by which this matter of assistance can begin to travel a two way street.
I shall oppose, as vigorously as I can, and publicly if necessary, any further aid or assistance to Britain unless these two matters are satisfactorily solved, because they strike at the heart of our present national security. My attitude toward future aid to Britain, no doubt, will be influenced by additional factors, but I assure you that these two matters, in my opinion, are vital and their solution is a prerequisite so far as I am concerned.
I am writing you at this time, because I expect to go to Europe within a few days for a period of six weeks or more and I want to make my attitude clear before any formal negotiations have been concluded. I also want to make clear that this letter expresses my personal views and that this matter has not been the subject of formal action by my Committee. I am confident, however, that the overwhelming sentiment of the members of the Committee is in accord with the views I have expressed here.
With kind personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
- Arthur H. Vandenberg, United States Senator from Michigan; Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.↩
- For documentation on United States concern regarding the foreign exchange position of the United Kingdom, see vol. iii, pp. 1 ff.↩