of the bomb. No other event that has occurred has done so much toward taking the horror-the terror-out of the atom.

The first decade of man's mastery of the atom, in its actual application, began on an early morning in July of 1945 in a blinding flash over the sands of Alamogordo. The monstrous Djinn had been released from the bottle. The second decade of the atom may be said to have begun in Geneva, 10 years later, but this time it emerged, not as a terrifying monster, but as the powerful, obedient servant of man. Wider horizons of grander view were opened. To many, it must have seemed that, overnight, the atom had been transformed from a thing of fear and terror to a promise of great blessing.

History may record that in Geneva, at the opening of this second decade of the atom, mankind's stake in peace was lifted out of the paralysis of fear to a vision so compelling as to render unthinkable the very notion of another major war. If the conference produced such a vision, it made a good and auspicious beginning. We must not allow that vision to fade-either for us or for other men.

27. SUMMARY OF ATOMIC ENERGY NEGOTIATIONS: Report to the President by the United States Representative for International Atomic Energy Negotiations,' November 30, 1955 (Excerpt)2

The following is a progress report of my activities for the year during which I have served.

I. Discussions Abroad

In December 1954, at the suggestion of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee of the Congress, I joined certain of its members in visiting a number of European countries to determine the international response to our "Atoms for Peace" program. In Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, and Switzerland, I consulted the individuals in government and in business chiefly concerned with atomic energy programs. It was apparent that the prospective demand for power in all these countries far exceeded their conventional fuel resources and that all of them would seek as rapidly as possible to develop atomic power programs. It was clear that they wished to cooperate and exchange information immediately with the United States. They preferred not to wait for the creation of an International Agency. II. Negotiations for an International Atomic Energy Agency

The Secretary of State in his opening statement to the Ninth United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 1954 stated

1 Morehead Patterson.

2 Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 2, 1956, pp. 5–7.

3 For the full text of this statement, see supra, pp. 92-100.

3

that the U.S. efforts "have been and will be directed primarily toward the following ends: 1) The creation of an International Agency whose initial membership will include nations from all regions of the world. It is hoped that such an Agency will start its work as early as next year." The view of the United States that the Agency should come into being as soon as possible became the view of the United Nations when the General Assembly by a unanimous vote passed a resolution expressing "the hope that the International Atomic Energy Agency will be established without delay." 1

This raised a basic issue-how it would be possible to solve the many complicated problems and troublesome details and at the same time establish an Agency at an early date. It was my conclusion that the draft Statute of the Agency 2 should be a broad constitutional framework a statement of general principles rather than a pointby-point revelation of details-which would leave the Agency free to develop primarily as an operating Agency after its creation. The Agency should be led and operated by experts in the field and administrators qualified to meet and cope with the uncharted and evolving problems which will have to be solved. I proceeded on this basis, bearing constantly in mind the examples of the International Bank and the International Monetary Fund as organizations which have carried out great responsibilities in a businesslike and successful

manner.

Among the problems which could be dealt with after the establishment of the Agency were the location of its headquarters and the functions it would assume under its broad grant of authority.

It was clear that the membership as a whole could not deal with the day-to-day technical problems which would confront the Agency. Therefore, we provided in the Statute for a Board of Governors with broad authority to make most of the necessary decisions for the Agency. The membership as a whole-described in the Statute as the General Conference maintains its control over the Board of Governors through election of a number of its members and through complete control over the purse. The budget must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the General Conference.

The provisions of the Statute dealing with composition and selection of the Board of Governors were designed to reflect the realities of the international situation. It is clear that for a number of years the Agency will secure its fissionable materials, its source materials and its technical skill from a very small number of States. It would be unrealisite to disregard this situation in developing a formula for composition and selection of the Board of Governors of the Agency. We studied a number of methods of meeting this situation. One possibility was to provide a system of weighted voting in the Board of Governors dependent upon the size of contributions. This was not feasible because of the technical difficulties of evaluating contributions.

1 Res. 810 (IX) of Dec. 4, 1954; supra, doc. 24.

2 For the text of the draft Statute, see the Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 24, 1955, pp. 666-672.

415900-57-vol. 275

Another possible method of meeting this situation was to provide that certain countries with the most advanced atomic energy programs should be permanent members of the Board of Governors. This did not seem desirable for two reasons: Over a period of years quite a number of additional States are likely to develop important atomic energy programs. Furthermore the possibility exists that a State designated as a permanent member would fail to make a substantial contribution to the Agency.

The formula which we developed, while it necessarily could not fully satisfy everyone, seems to me a sound one. It places appropriate emphasis upon contributions of fissionable materials, of technical skills, and of source materials. It contemplates extensive changes in the composition of the Board as other States developed their resources of uranium and thorium and their atomic energy programs. It provides substantial representation for countries which would be in a position to contribute neither fissionable materials nor source materials nor technical skills.

I have gone into some detail in connection with this provision of the Statute since it was far the most difficult problem which faced the negotiating group.

Generally as the negotiating group clarified the problems and visualized in detail how the Agency would operate, solutions of other problems suggested themselves.

Procedurally the negotiations developed somewhat as follows: The United States prepared a first draft of the Statute taking into consideration suggestions received from other negotiating States and also from the United Nations General Assembly debates. This draft was then submitted to the negotiating States on March 29, 1955. During April and May the United States discussed this draft with all the negotiating States and also received further comments from interested agencies of the United States Government which had not participated in the original drafting.

After a thorough discussion, it developed that there was sufficient unanimity among all negotiating States so that substantially all of the suggested changes could be reconciled and incorporated into a new draft of the Statute. This new draft was transmitted to the Soviet Union on a confidential basis on July 29, 1955, and its comments were requested. It was distributed by the United States on behalf of the negotiating States also on a confidential basis to all eighty-four States Members of the United Nations or of the specialized agencies on August 22, 1955. Comments on the Statute were requested from all States.

Many comments have been received either through communications to the State Department or through statements made in the recent debate on this subject in the Tenth General Assembly. These comments indicate that differences in viewpoint as disclosed to date are mainly concentrated on a few points such as: a) composition and manner of selection of the Board of Governors of the Agency; b) relationship of the Agency to the United Nations; c) procedures for

approval of the budget and prorating among States of operating

expenses.

The United States and the other negotiating States have sought to give full consideration to the viewpoints expressed by all of the States. It would not, however, be feasible to include within the negotiating group all States which have made comments. A group of that size could not effectively work out the technical details of a Statute. Also a detailed discussion of the Statute in the General Assembly was undesirable at this stage.

On October 21, the United States called for an Operating Level Meeting to consider further the draft Statute. The United States asked the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, India, and Brazil in addition to the original negotiating group to participate in this Meeting. The USSR on October 1 had suggested such a meeting with the USSR and Czechoslovakia added to the original eight negotiating States. Thus the phase of the negotiations which I have conducted has now been merged with the negotiations with the USSR, heretofore reserved for the attention of the Secretary of State. The new group will seek to reconcile differences of viewpoint and to produce a Statute which will be acceptable to as many States as possible.

On many fundamental matters all States are thinking basically along the same lines. The differences of viewpoint, while substantial, seem capable of reconciliation. The unanimous approval by the Tenth General Assembly of the resolution dealing with the peaceful uses of the atom 2 highlights the great progress that has already been made.

III. Bilateral Agreements for Cooperation

The informal discussions among the eight States participating in the drafting of a Statute for an International Agency had by December 1954 revealed that the drafting of a Statute of an International Agency satisfactory even to the eight States initially participating in the negotiations, would in itself be a considerable task. To secure the views of all other States would certainly take a year. Therefore immediate achievements in advancing the Atoms-for-Peace program were more likely to result from bilateral agreements for cooperation. The United States Atomic Energy Commission had already embarked upon extensive programs to share the benefits of the atom particularly through distribution of radio-isotopes,3 through furnishing extensive libraries of unclassified information to countries in all areas of the world and through extensive programs for training foreign students in the United States. This cooperation involving exchange of neither classified material nor fissionable materials was possible without formal agreements for cooperation.

A further approach promising immediate results was a program for the installation of research reactors abroad. These research reactors

1 See Department of State Bulletin, Nov. 14, 1955, p. 798.

2 Res. 912 (X) of Dec. 3, 1955; infra.

3 See infra, doc. 36.

would furnish training in the type of problems that would be encountered on a larger scale in the operation of power reactors. In addition, these research reactors would permit production abroad of a number of useful isotopes.

In order for countries to receive from the United States the atomic fuel necessary for the operation of the research reactors, it is necessary for them to enter into Agreements for Cooperation as provided by Article 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The discussions with several States which had already expressed an interest in such reactors disclosed that conditions and requirements in most countries were sufficiently similar so that a standard form of agreement could be prepared. Accordingly, the Department of State and the Atomic Energy Commission developed such an agreement which was first made available on March 22, 1955.

It was necessary that the Agreements for Cooperation be negotiated and initialed by approximately June 15 lest the adjournment of Congress in early August might make compliance with the thirty day waiting provision of Article 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 impossible until February of next year. The Missions in Washington of thirty-four States were contacted and twenty-four such Bilateral Agreements were initialed. Nineteen of these Agreements were initialed in time to become effective prior to the adjournment of Congress. (Annex I)

IV. Geneva Technical Conference

I attended the UN Technical Conference in Geneva from August 7 to August 20, accompanied by my Special Assistant. We discussed informally problems relating to the International Atomic Energy Agency with a large number of delegations.