◆ SpookStack

cma ger of molestation, and a technically more able personnel could be fired. Anything less chan this, proponent of the plan have claimed, would be unsafe and lack che necessary “‘toalproof” guarantees against illegal diversion of fissionable materials. Underlying the plan when it was formulated was the assumption chat azomic energy would soon be uscd on a large scale for the production of electric power. If this development did not take place, and the ban on atomic weapons went into effect, the proposed international authority would actually have little ro manage. Six years have paswd and this large scale atomic power industry is not yet in sight. To this extent, at jeast, the plan is rather hypothetical and perhaps unrealistic. The Atomic Energy Commission's Subcommittee 2 first stated in 1946 that all other stages could be controlled by in- spection but atomic plants should be actually managed by che control agency. Later, spokesmen for the Sovier Union became inflexibly opposed co the ownership and manayement feavure. To their view che international authority would be dominated by the “Anglo-American bloc,” They maintain that it would restrict the development of acomic energy for peaceful pur- poses, and would invade national sovereignty contrary to the United Nations Charter. Finally, they insisted that it was un- necessary to go this far to achieve effective control. In view of these objections, Sovict spokesten proposed a plan of their own, calling for national ownership and management of permissible atomic facilities subject to “strict” international concrol. A majority of the United Nations approved what were essentially the American proposals at the 1948 Assembly, and nown as the Majority Plan. Neither henceforth they became kno ScC TILE LE Pade au side would budge from its position on atumnic energy control. However, at Paris a western cri-partite resulution sidestepped a head-on discussion of the impasse. That resolution (adopted January 21, 1952) instructed the new Disarmament Commis- sion to be ready to consider any proposals for control of either conventional or atomic armaments; however, it also stated chat unless a better or no less effective system is devised, the Majority Plan should continue co serve as the basis for discussion. The vote in favor of this provision was 32-3 with nine abstentions; the draft resolution as a whole was adopted by a vote of 42-5 with seven abstentions. ao 9 Soviet spokesmen are not the only ones who have doubted the necessity for international ownership. In 1946 the Car- negic Endowment for International Peace commitiee of repre- sentatives from scientific, political and ocher fields issued a report, after detailed study before the Baruch plan was known, accepting the principle of national rather than international ownership. In 1950 the British United Natiens Association published a pamphlet expressing a preference for international ownership but stating that a settlement for national owner- ship under strict control was better than a continuation of the impasse. A number of books and articles, written by competent students and observers, have called for reconsideration of the Majority Plan. Oa December 1, 1951, the London Times expressed itself editorially on the Majority Plan: “This utopian proposal would in practice be as ditheult for the United States ta aceypt as for the The Federation of American Scientists has, for the dase year or two, urged that a new Acheson-Lilienthal Committee be instructed to restudy the entire problem of atomic energy Caetne Tata oF QUITE Whom. control, More recently, in January, 1952, more than 200 Brit- ish scientists adopted a resolution declaring that there are no unsurmountable technical diffculties in the way of establishing an effective system of contrul and inspection af atomic estab- lishments, which could be operated even in a peri i tional tension; and chat international ownership was not cssen- tial for effective control and the proposal should be abandoned. Marepver, private convenations between the American Friends Service Committee’s working party and a number of leading American Senators, Representatives, scientists and other stu- dewts of the problem lead chem co believe that few informed people are nuw convinced that it is cither necessary or wise co insist On international ownership, An alternative plan is suc- gested on pages 30-32, : 7 Significantly, on April 28, 1952 the Unired States De- partment of Siate established a five-man panel of consultants to advise in connection with the work of the United Nations Disarmament Commission. The appuinement of this group may indicate that U. S$. atomic control proposals are being subjected 1?