NEW PROPOSALS FOR ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 November 1949, Page 10

NEW PROPOSALS FOR ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL

NEW'YORK, November 7.--A resolution asking all nations to renounce enough sovereignty to ensure effective international control of atomic energy was submitted to the United Nations' Political Committee by Trance and Canada, today. The committee also has before it an Indian motion that the whole problem of atomic energy be referred to an international law commission with a request that it submit to the General Assembly before July 31, 1950, the draft of a declaration on the duties of States and individuals in respect to. the development of . atomic energy so as to ensure its use for peaceful purposes only. Main Points

The French and Canadian resolution asked the General Assembly to endorse the following main points:— (1) Atomic energy, if used for peace, will lead to an increase of human welfare, but if used for war may bring about the destruction of civilisation. (2) Humanity is in danger so long as States retain under their individual control the development and operation of atomic energy facilities. (3) An international, co-operative effort can avoid this danger and hasten the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. (4) All nations would join such a co-operative development and do everything in their power by the acceptance of international control to prohibit and eliminate atomic weapons. . . (5) The Atomic Energy Commission should continue to explore every avenue of possible agreement.

Russia Criticised

Sir Carl Berendsen (New Zealand) said that all the world but Russia was willing to accept essential international control and supervision. “All the world except the Soviet is prepared to show to any authorised observer everything being done in atomic research or in its application to war-like, industrial, or other purposes,” he added. “The Soviet and its satellites are unwilling. They attempt to cover their recalcitrance with facesaving propagandist proposals which deceive no one. The conclusion is as obvious as it is ominous. Those who accept inspection have nothing to hide. Those who decline inspection are inevitably and properly suspect of an intention to deceive.” Sir Carl Berendsen opposed any suggestions for standstill or truce agreements. “This is not a dreamland in which we live,” he said. “Let no one be deceived by fine phrases or optimistic resolutions. The sole test is effective inspection and control on an international basis.”

Sir Carl Berendsen rejected the Indian proposal. He said that he appreciated India’s “purity of motive,” but that was not a matter that could be settled in law. Law without a sanction was a mockery. He added that New Zealand would support the Canadian and French proposal.