University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Foreign Relations of the United States

Page View

United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. National security affairs; foreign economic policy
(1950)

United States policy at the United Nations with respect to the regulation of armaments and collective security: the international control of atomic energy; regulation of conventional armaments; efforts to implement article 43 of the United Nations charter by placing armed forces at the disposal of the Security Council,   pp. 1-125 PDF (51.4 MB)


Page 21


REGITJLATION OF ARMAMkvENTS2
they would be willing to have 1) a preliminary submission of rnfor-
mation concerning armaments and armed ,forces ,which would be
subject to adequate verification, and 2) a continuous "control"
after
the plan went into effect to insure compliance therewith.
  Mr. N~ash agreed that if the U.S.S.R. reintroduced their' one-,hird
proposals, or renewed the discussion of them, a line of inquiry such
as that proposed by Baron ,de la Tournelle might prove .interesting
and useful. He said that the Russians had never been called upon to
explain their prop:,osals: in any detail, and thought that, given the
opportunity, it ,would be well to do so provided the 6dscussioncould
be kept within the area of item 3 of the ,C'C.A. plan of work, i~e.
safeguards. He said' that: the Russians would likely insist :that th
C.'C.A. get into immediate discussion of ituema 4, i.e. actual plans of
disarmament, arguing that to consider safeguards first would be "put-
ting the cart before the horse." Such an attempt should be resisted
firmly with the argument that under existing circumstances of the
world situation, there is little use in considering a plan of ;disarmament
until it has first been determined whether it is, feasible to develop
real," protection, i.e..adequate sa, feguards to insure effective complianee
with any plan.
  General Penette said that 'he could see no major obstacle to- the dis-
cussion of item 3 in the 'Commission. It would be impossible to con-
sider item 4 now.- Before iteem 4 was takenA up it would be' necessary to
know the view-'s of the French Government, incldingthos~e of 'the
Genet:al Staff, which wouldwant to examine the swiration in the light
of atomic energy and the qustion fb Article 43 'forces. Mr. Nash and
Mr. Cole agreed. Geneal Pentrte also agreed With Baron de la
Tournelle that it would be interesting to know more about the Soviet
views on "control" as suggested by the latter.
  There followed "a 'discusion ohe most suitabe time tor the next
meeting, Baron 'de I1a Tournelle thought that- it would be bist to wait
for about six Weeks by which timet hee might be -a change in the Sigtua-
tion rel~ating to membership and cred&entials in the -Seurity .Council:.
China 'would be, chairma -of the Commlssion in. February and he
thought that it would e preferablte to wait:--Itwas w ,eagreedth;at there
w as         A necessity foi calling a-meeting in the immediat. fta. ure
and
that in the meantime the delegations regresented t the meeting would
contiunWe their study- of safegua df a4nd exchasn-ge furtiher vieW's. The
desirability.of requesting the Norwegian Delegation to participate in
these discussions was mentioned and appeared to meet with general
agreement.
496-362 77    3
:21


Go up to Top of Page