Department of State Atomic Energy Files
The Deputy United States Representative on the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (Osborn) to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas)
Dear Lew: Arneson is back and has given me your good letter of June 26th.1 I am glad you agreed with us as to his competence and fine qualities. I might add that he is altogether appreciative of and enthusiastic about the extremely able way in which you handled the whole negotiation, and feels confident that nothing can go wrong in this; matter now it is in your hands.
It might be useful for me to comment briefly on your cable 3566,2 received this morning.
The schedule of work now contemplated in the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission will not necessitate taking formal positions on the AEC working papers until the end of July. At that time, it is expected that the first voting will take place on these papers in Committee 2. At that time it will be possible to introduce alternative provisions, but only as formal amendments. It is expected that the papers will be voted out of Committee 2 to the Working Committee around August 1st. After they are in the Working Committee, formal amendment will be possible but more difficult. The United States will stand firmly on the substance of the papers in their present form, although some verbal changes are possible and probably desirable in terms of consistency. It is certain, however, that any serious weakening of the proposals would not only be unacceptable to the United States Government, but also to American public opinion.
It is expected that the Working Committee will complete consideration of these proposals by the end of August and they will be made the basis of the second report to the Security Council. It has not yet been decided just what will be done with the formal Soviet proposals of June 11th. None of the Delegates seems to take these very seriously, their feeling being that they were introduced for their public effect, contained nothing new, and got a bad reception. It seems clear that any attempt to “mediate” between the United States and the Soviet now would be quite unrealistic in terms of the present close cooperation of the majority of Delegates on the Commission, and would be resented by the American public as an attempt at appeasement.
[Page 543]In your further conversations with the U.K. we would urge you to stress that these papers represent the views of the Delegates of the nations that worked on them, especially Canada, France, China, Brazil, Belgium, Colombia and the United States. They represent group effort and group conviction. While consonant with the original Baruch offer, they should now be termed the group or Commission plan. They include changes in the year-end report proposed by others and accepted by the United States. The position on ownership of source material was arrived at in a working group of which General McNaughton of Canada was Chairman. The principle of paramountcy of security in regard to minimum stockpiling of nuclear fuel was first put forward by the French. The Soviet is exceedingly anxious to attack these papers on the ground that they are United States proposals. It is very evident that the Soviet does not like being put in the position of opposing proposals put forward by the whole group of nations on the Commission. My own personal guess is that they will again abstain from voting.
The question of tactics in September is still under consideration. It requires, of course, highest level decisions in our government and others will write you about this matter.
With most warm personal regards,
Sincerely yours,