able obstacles in the way of rapid progress. We think that the best way, if not the only way, for us to render a service to the world in this field is to begin by simplifying the organization-by simplifying the negotiations-by concentrating on what is feasible-what is doable-by getting down to work with the least possible delay.

10. The Soviet representative renewed his attempt to chain any progress in international cooperation in developing peaceful uses of the atom to concurrent progress in connection with a disarmament program, although he no longer insisted that other states must first agree on an unsafeguarded paper prohibition of the use of atomic weapons before his government would join the negotiations in the field of peaceful uses.

President Eisenhower, last December, made it clear that, while his proposal was not a disarmament proposal, he recognized that agreement on it might bring peace nearer and thus bring disarmament nearer because, of course, disarmament and peace were not one and the same thing. The President hoped that his proposal would "open up a new channel for peaceful discussion and initiate at least a new approach to the many difficult problems that must be solved in both private and public conversations, if the world is to shake off the inertia imposed by fear and is to make positive progress towards peace."

This Committee does not need to be reminded of the importance of disarmament or of the vast physical and mental burdens it would lift. Still less do we need to be reminded, after eight year's debate, how difficult it is to disarm when mutual trust is lacking.

Disarmament is one element in the building of peace. At least one other element is a new world outlook which may get us into the habit of working together and thus, eventually, in trusting each other.

We think that this atoms for peace proposal will lead the world away from war because it is a new prism through which we can look at the problems of the world. It is a new place at which to begin.

We must therefore not bog down one proposal by tying it on to another. There already exists a separate framework for disarmament. We here propose a framework for the parallel discussions of the peaceful uses of the atom. We anticipate that genuine progress in either discussion will eventually facilitate progress in the other. We agree with the representative of the Soviet Union when he says that the proposals of the March 19 memorandum do not, in themselves, result in the reduction of the potential force of atomic weapons. We agree with him on that. Neither do they increase it. But they would certainly result in economic and social benefits to many areas of the world. And we, in our partnership with the other negotiating powers, are determined that progress in making the atom available for peace shall not be further delayed.

11. The Soviet Representative contended that the exploitations of atomic energy for peaceful uses inevitably implies an increase in the supply of fissionable weapon-grade materials; that the non-dangerous materials diverted to peaceful uses could become dangerous; and that industrial reactors would produce radioactive effluents or by-products which could be used for military purposes. He thereby implied that the agreement for peaceful uses of atomic energy must include an agreement to eliminate atomic weapons. The distinguished Representative of Sweden also alluded to this problem. We believe, however, that it is not necessary to solve the entire problem of international

control of atomic energy and the elimination of atomic weapons before we can have peaceful projects utilizing atomic fission consistent with international security.

Let me reaffirm the belief of the United States as stated in the published correspondence with the Soviet Union contained in Document A/2738, that ways can be devised consistent with international security for developing the peaceful uses of the atom and for safeguarding against the diversion of materials to warlike purposes.

For one thing, there are forms of peaceful utilization in which no question of weapon-grade material arises at all. In the activities proposed for the immediate future as described in my speech before this Assembly on November 5, for example, weapon-grade materials would not be involved in any way.

The problem of radioactive by-products suggested by the Soviet Representative can also be dealt with.

As for ensuring against diversion of materials from power-producing reactors, this problem is part of the general question of the various interlocking safeguards which are necessary to see to it that fissionable materials provided for or produced in connection with peaceful uses of atomic energy are utilized only for such purposes and are not diverted to improper uses. This is one problem which must be considered in the course of negotiations to establish the international atomic energy agency and the various powers negotiating-particularly those actually producing fissionable materials-will obviously make clear their views on this matter. It is theoretically possible, as the Soviet Representative suggested, to build power reactors that will increase the supply of fissionable weapon-grade materials, but is not inevitable. We believe that as power-producing reactors are designed and built in the future, the ingenuity of the scientists and statesmen will find ways of assuring that materials are not diverted to war-like industries.

Remember that the spread of nuclear materials through the work of the international agency, for the purpose of establishing atomic power plants, would not in any degree complicate the problem of ensuring the utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only. That problem already exists as a part of the disarmament question, and the great powers have been discussing it for years. The international control organ, when established, could function perfectly well in collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency. But, in the meantime, we want to get on with the business of helping to bring atomic energy to the service of mankind. Nothing we do to this end need complicate the problem of disarmament control.

12. The Soviet Representative has also sought to link disarmament and the peaceful uses of the atom by insisting upon the paramount role of the Security Council in this field. The Security Council, under the Charter, has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The General Assembly likewise has responsibilities in this field. If a situation arises in connection with the peaceful uses of the atom in any country or group of countries which endangers international peace and security, it would be a matter of concern both to the Security Council and the General Assembly and would doubtless be dealt with by the United Nations. as are other situations of this nature. Thus, it is possible and indeed probable that in the interests of international security there will be

some relationship between the Agency and the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. But the Soviet Representative harked back to the General Assembly resolution of February 14, 1946 creating the original United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, a body which no longer exists. This was the Commission which was to make specific proposals for the control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes. Since the primary objective of this Commission was to deal with atomic disarmament; the Commission, of course,was to report and make recommendations to the Security Council and to the General Assembly. The Soviet Representative now seems to suggest that the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose functions will be wholly different, should be saddled with the same requirement and thus be made subject to the veto.

The truth is that the purpose which this defunct commission was designed to achieve has, by a recent resolution (and many other previous ones), been referred to the Disarmament Commission, which is the body to which the United Nations now looks for action on disarmament.

13. Questions have been asked by certain other members as to the nature of the participation of underdeveloped countries in the Agency. I believe this was referred to in the speech by the Representative of Pakistan. The memorandum handed to the Soviet Ambassador by the Secretary of State on March 19 contained a provision that the highest executive authority in the Agency should be exercised by a Board of Governors of limited membership representing governments. The memorandum went on to suggest that in determining the composition of the Board of Governors it might be desirable "to take account of geographic distribution and membership by prospective beneficiaries". In other words-and I stress this point-our plans contemplate representation on the Agency's Board of Governors of the underdeveloped countries which will also be participating in the Agency.

14. Another question relates to the participation in the Agency of States other than those which are conducting the negotiations for its organization. The Secretary of State, in his opening address to this Assembly on September 23, made the United States position on this entirely clear. For example, he said: "I would like to make perfectly clear that our planning excludes no nation from participation in this great venture. As our proposa's take shape, all nations interested in participation and willing to take on the responsibilities will be welcome to join with us in the planning and execution of this program". That continues to be the United States position.

We have never contemplated a closed organization of contributing states. Nor have we contemplated confronting other governments with a fait accompli in the creation of this Agency. As we have indicated in the seven-power resolution, we have undertaken to inform the members of the United Nations as progress is achieved in the establishment of the Agency. Moreover, I can give a further assurance in this regard. The Governments engaged in the current negotiations intend to consult those governments which indicate an interest in participating in the Agency before the agreement establishing the Agency is submitted for ratification. Views expressed by the governments so consulted will, of course, be seriously taken into

account.

15. This, then, is our program. We want above all to find the quickest way to create this Agency: That is what the seven-power resolution is designed to promote. We are pressing on with our negotiations on an urgent basis and ask nothing more than the cooperation and good will of other governments so that by the next session of the General Assembly we shall be able to discuss accomplishments and concrete results of international cooperation in putting the discoveries of atomic science at the service of man.

Now, Mr. Chairman, just as I began this prepared statement which I have just concluded, I received a message from Washington, the substance of which I now lay before you. I hope it will once and for all remove from the minds of all any confusion as to how specific the United States atoms for peace proposal is, whether or not the scope of our proposal has been narrowed. Here is the message:

I have just been authorized by the President of the United States to state to you that the Atomic Energy Commission has allocated 100 kilograms of fissionable material to serve as fuel in the experimental atomic reactors to which the Secretary of State and I have previously referred and which are to be situated in various places abroad. This amount of fissionable material is enough to activate a considerable number of these reactors throughout the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Statement by Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., United States Representative, in Committee One of United Nations General Assembly, on the Seven-Power Resolution on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, November 19, 1954

On behalf of the sponsors, I would like to say that we feel that this resolution has been very thoroughly considered indeed, and that we feel we have reached the stage, which was reached also with the disarmament resolution at previous meetings, at which we did not feel that we can make any further revisions in the text. We have tried very hard to consider all viewpoints. I would like to express my appreciation to the distinguished ambassador of Ecuador, Dr. Trujillo, when he said that he would not press his amendments. I would like also to give him my assurance that the views which he expressed will receive our most careful and sympathetic consideration, as will the ideas which motivate the amendments that he proposed.

Let me say too in connection with what he said and what I think was also said by the Representative of Burma that there is the most complete intention on the part of the sponsors of this proposal that on the board of governors of the agency there be representatives of the underdeveloped countries. That is an assurance that I have made before and which I make again. I feel sure that that will happen and that the various regions of the world will be adequately represented.

This afternoon, the Representative of India introduced amendments, the first of which provides that the negotiations for the agency shall be broadened so as to include all states able and willing to participate. Now this could mean negotiations of more than 60 nationsall of the nations members of the United Nations plus those who belong to the specialized agencies. As we have made plain several

65951-55- -21

times, we are opposed to this type of proposal which we believe would delay matters for such a long time as very seriously to jeopardize this whole project, if not indeed to destroy it. But this emphatically does not mean that we are not eager actively to consult all governments and to get their views. As I said on November 15, the governments engaged in the current negotiations intend to consult before the agreement establishing the agency is submitted for ratification. In other words, it isn't a question of fait accompli, it isn't a question of a paper that is absolutely finished at all.

We intend to consult those governments which indicate an interest in participating in the agency, and the views expressed by the governments so consulted will of course be very seriously taken into account. I think it is clear to every member of this committee that the statement which I made then in behalf of the sponsors represents a serious engagement; it is an undertaking on our part to consult with every state which expresses an interest in participating in the agency. Furthermore, we have made it clear that such consultations will take place before the agreement is drawn up in the final form and before it is submitted for ratification.

Now of course we cannot say at this time just when the agreement will be drafted in the completed form and that is why we cannot say now when it exactly will be practicable to consult with other states. But I am certain that if any state wishes to submit its views before we have completed this agreement, we will be glad to receive them. We have already received a number of suggestions in the course of the present debate which we shall want to take into account in drafting the agreement. All views wherever and whenever submitted will be given the fullest consideration. No one is left out of this contemplation. All views will be taken into account. I am grateful of this opportunity to repeat that again in the most sincere and solemn manner of which I am capable.

Report of the First Committee, United Nations General Assembly, "International Co-Operation in Developing the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy," November 26, 1954

Rapporteur: Mr. OSCAR THORSING (Sweden)

1. On 23 September 1954, the United States of America requested the inclusion of an additional item in the agenda of the ninth session of the General Assembly entitled "International co-operation in developing the peaceful uses of atomic energy: report of the United States of America" and forwarded an explanatory memorandum (A/2734). On 25 September, the United States transmitted copies of communications exchanged between the Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the peaceful uses of atomic energy (A/2738). At the 478th plenary meeting on 25 September, the General Assembly decided to include the item in the agenda of the session and referred it to the First Committee for consideration and report.

2. The First Committee considered the item at its 707th to 725th meetings held between 5 and 23 November 1954.

3. At the 708th meeting, the representative of the United States introduced, on behalf of Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, the