501.BC Atomic/2–2847
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of International Security Affairs (Johnson)
Mr. Noyes telephoned to me a brief résumé of the present situation.
He said that the United States draft resolution1 had been prepared in the expectation of paragraph by paragraph discussion of the Report. However, in the midst of the Council meeting the other afternoon, it became apparent that no member of the Council had other things to say and Senator Austin therefore decided to introduce the resolution.
Under the circumstances there is not much of a record of the views of members of the Council. U.S. Delegation has therefore been quietly urging other members of the Council who have not yet spoken to state in general terms in the Council their approval of the Report as submitted. This would mean disagreement with the proposed Soviet amendments2 whether that was explicitly stated or not. Talks have been held on this basis with all but the Syrian, whom they expect to see before the next Council meeting on Wednesday.
Mr. Noyes said his personal opinion is that Gromyko was surprised at our resolution which was much more “liberal” than he might have expected. Mr. Noyes believes that Gromyko has requested instructions in this new situation and that that is the basis for his request to Senator Austin late on February 27 for a postponement.
I informed Mr. Noyes that in my opinion the course they were pursuing and intend to pursue is a good one, adding that we here had all along had serious doubts about the desirability of paragraph by paragraph consideration. I thought it certainly desirable to have the old Council members who have not spoken reaffirm their approval of the Report, and the new ones indicate their acceptance of it. I added that I thought it would be helpful if Senator Austin could, without forcing the occasion, make a more specific declaration of U.S. approval of the Report and disapproval of the Soviet amendments than he had yet [Page 425] done. Noyes said he was planning to make precisely such a recommendation to the Senator.
When Noyes asked whether there were any textual changes in the resolution which we would like to see made, I replied that we felt that was a matter which should be left to the people in New York, and that approval here had been on the basis of the general idea. He said that some members of the staff there (specifically Lindsay and Arneson) were in doubt about the paragraph recognizing that agreement is “preliminary” and had proposed its excision. Noyes’ view, which he intended to indicate to Austin, was that if any other delegation questioned that paragraph, we might suggest the deletion of the word “preliminary” and the revision of the paragraph in such a manner that it would still contain the “one package” idea. I stated that I personally was in favor of such a course.
- For text, see telegram 173 from New York, February 24, p. 422.↩
- At the 108th Meeting of the Security Council, February 18, the Soviet representative introduced 12 amendments to the findings and recommendations of the Atomic Energy Commission report. The Soviet Union proposed that inspection, supervision, and management by an international agency should apply to all existing atomic plants immediately after the entry into force of an appropriate convention, that an effective system of control must be international in scope and established by an enforceable multilateral convention administered within the framework of the Security Council, that existing stocks of atomic weapons be destroyed, and that the report’s recommendation that a violator of the terms of the treaty should have no legal right, by veto or otherwise, to protect itself from the consequences of violation, be eliminated. For the text of the Soviet amendments, see SC, 2nd yr., Suppl. No. 7, pp. 63–68.↩