◆ SpookStack

ger of molestation, and a technically more able personnel could be hired. Anything less than this, proponents of the plan have claimed, would be unsafe and lack che necessary “toolproof” guarantees against illegal diversion of fissionable materials, Underlying the plin when it was formulated was the assumption that atomic energy would soon be used on a large scale for the production of clectric power, If this development did not take place, and the ban on aromic weapons went into effect, the proposed international authority would actually have little ro manage. Six years have passed and this large scale atomic power industry is not yet in sight. To this extent, at least, the plan is rather hypothetical and perhaps unrealistic. The Atomic nergy Commission's Subcommittee 2 first stated in 1946 that all other stages could be controlled by in- spection but atomic plants should be actualty managed by che control agency. Later, spokesmen for the Sovier Union became inflexibly opposed to the ownership and management feature. To their view che international authority would be dominated by the “Anglo-American bloc,” They maintain that it would restrict the development of atomic 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, Soviet spokestien proposed a plan of their own, calling for national ownership and management of permissible atomic facilicies subject to “strict” international control. A majority of the United Nations approved what were essentially the American propovals at the 1948 Assembly, and henceforth they became known as the Majority Plan. Neither side would budge from its position on aturnic energy control. However, at Paris a western cri-partite resolution sidestepped a head-on discussion of the impasse, That resolution (adopted January 11, 1952) instructed the new Disarmament Commis- Sion to be ready t© 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 ro 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. 1% Soviet spokesmen are nat the only ones who have doubted the necessity for international ownership. In 1946 the Car- negic Endowment for International Peace committe of repre- sentatives from scientific, political and other fields issued a report, after detailed study before the Baruch plan was known, accepting the principle of national rather chan international ownership. In 1950 the British United Nations 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 contiquation 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 to accypt ay for the Soviet Union.” The Federation of American Scientists has, for the Jase year or two, urged that a new Acheson-Lilienthal Committee be instructed to restudy the entire problem of atomic energy control, More recently, in January, 1952, more than 200 Brit- ish scientists adopted a resolution declaring that there are no unsurmountsable technical difficulties in the way of establishing an effective system of contrul and inspection of atomic estab- lishments, which could be operated even in a period of interaa- tional tension; and that international ownership was not cssen- tial for effective control and the proposal should be abandoned. Moreover, private conversations between the American Friends Service Committee's working party and a number of leading American Senators, Representatives, scientists and other stu. deus of the problem: tead them co believe that few informed peuple are nuw convinced that it is cither necessary or wise co insist on international ownership, An alternative plan is sug- gested un pages 30-32, Significantly, on Aprit 28, 1952 the United States De- partment of Suate established a five-man panel of consultants to advise in connection with the work of the United Nations Disarmament Commission. The appointment of this group may indicate that U. S. atomic control proposals are being subjected Ww