REGULATION OF ARMAMENTS


cerning the possibility of relying upon a system of inspection alone
for the control of atomic energy. He referred to the interview of
Mr. Gordon Dean, Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission,
appearing in the November 3 issue of U.S. News and World Report,
'where, Mr. Dean discussed briefly the effectiveness of a system of
inspection in the (atomic energy field. He wondered whether there was
any possible connection between the President's suggestion and the
substance of the Gordon Dean interview. I replied that I was not
aware of any connection between the two, and that I could definiftely
state that. there was nothing in the President's suggestion of a new
commission that was to be taken as implying ,any change in the views
of the US concerning the inadequacy of a system of mere inspection
for the effective control of atomic energy. Dr. Errera stated that he
was relieved to hearthat there was no such implication to be derived
from the President's suggestion, adding that it continued to be the
view of their Government that mere inspection alone could not be
accepted as an effective system for the control of ,atomic energy.
Dr. Errera also asked whether the Presidenit's suggestion might carry
the implication that the US might be going to propose some "swap"l
in
the way of a reduction in the atomic field in exchange for a reduction in
the field-of conventional armaments and armed forces. I replied thait
I could not see how such ,an exchange would be feasible and that in
any event, there was no such implication to be derived from the Presi-
dent's suggestion. Dr. Errera said that in the view of his Delegation,
the suggestion -for .the consolidation of the two present commissions
.into a single new commission was a good one and would receive their
:support. He said he thought that such a commission could carry
forward much useful work 'with the technical phases of the problem
in both , the -tomic and nonatomic fields, despite the inability to reach
any present solution.of the major ,political issues involved. He asked
what our views might be concerning the composition of such a com-
mission, volunteering his own opinion that probably the simplest
approach would be ,to carry over the representation on the atomic
energy commission; that is, all members of the Security Council plus
Canada, when not a member of the Security Council. He added, how-
ever, that some consideration might be given to countries like Belgium
having an interest in the source materials of ,atomic energy. I replied
that our thinking had not yet become firm on the point, but that we
were presently inclined to agree with his view that the best approach
would be to carry over the representation of the-member nations
serving on the atomic energy commission.
  UK Representatives: --At a luncheon meeting with Messrs. Coulson
and Laskey pessimism was registered, particularly by the latter, con-


109