Evening star., 1946-10-04
Text Of Wallace Reply to Boruch Complaint

| / i ext or w 0HQ
| Following is the tert OF a state
naent BY Henry A. Wallace, re-
plying to Bernard NJ, B1rtlch,
Dho complained OF Mr.. Wdllnce's
4 criticism OF United States atomic
energy policy:
MIR. Baruch has spoken. But he
has not yet dealt with the central
issue to which my letter of July 23
to the President was addressed.
Neither in his memorandum of Sep
1 tember "a to the President nor in
his personal blast at me do find
any indication that the United
States representative has come to
grips with the serious points of dis
agreement on which the work Of the
United Nations Atomic Energy COM
mission has been deadlocked for
some time, or with the fact that the
nations Of the world are even now
engaged in a frantic atomic bomb
race.
These basic points of disagreement
are the "other questions" which Mr..
Baruch insists have no bearing upon
the charges he is trying to make
about my position on atomic control.
Far from attempting to clear up
public misunderstanding and elimi-
nate dissension, he is increasing
public confusion on these most crit
ical issues.
It is regrettable that he chose
this occasion also to reafflrm the
stubborn and inflexible position he
has taken at time when negotia-
tions are in a critical phase. The
danger of failure in these negotia-
tions lies in his statement that "the
United States delegation cannot
consider notifications in those fun
Edamental principles of its plan
which, in our judgment, must be
maintained to meet the mandate
given the commission by the United
Nations General Assembly last jan
uary." 1t is precisely Mr.. Baruch's
Judgment" as to what must be
maintained" that has created the
impasse.
Preoccupied With Procedure.
1t is also regrettable that Mr..
Baruch is unable to distinguish the
fundamental, critical issues from
their purely procedural aspects. His
attention is SO closely directed to-
ward the procedures governing the
various stages in the transition to
full international control of atomic
energy that he completely ignores
the question of what the real con-
tent of these stages is to be. In
view of his preoccupation with this
less important aspect Of the COM
Missions task, 1t seems an appro-
pirate occasion to ask: When are
you going to get down to business,
Mr.. Barueh?"
The present impasse in the nego-
tiations of the United Nations
Atomic Energy Commission arises
from two basic points of disagree
ment among the nations represented
on the commission. These are in
dicated in the unsigned letter used
as q basis for discussion which Mr..
Baruch has kindly published without
my prior knowledge.
The first, and most important one.
relates to the question of whether
the United States should continue
its production and stockpiling OF
atomic bombs during the negotiation
of the treaty and the transition to
| full international control.
| The second relates to the Russian
refusal to agree to an international
system of inspection to control
atomic energy production.
Issue Raised Unnecessarily.
A third point that has been given
much publicity relates to the Rus
sian refusal to waive its veto right
as suggested in the American pro-
posals on matters relating to atomic
energy control. I must say ]
still feel that the veto question was
unnecessarily raised In the American
proposal and has served as q barrier
to the successful negotiation OF an
international atomic energy treaty.
These critical issues demonstrate
the major thesis Of my letter to the
President-the absence Of attitudes
Of mutual trust and confidence be-
4 tween the United States and Russia.
The United States atomic energy
proposals as presented by Mr.. Baruch
have been variously described In
glowing and in derogatory terms.
/ One thing is clear about them.
i They have not solved the problem.
Nothing 4n the recent statements OF
Mr.. Baruch would cause me to re-
wise the basic tenets in my letter to
President Truman concerning the
way to peace and atomic energy con-
trols.
At the conference mentioned by
Mr., Baruch in his telegram, ] re-
marked that had not, at the time
h I wrote my letter of July %. been
fully posted on his position relative
to one point of procedure. Mr.
Baruch then asked me for a public
statement translating this remark
into an admission of inaccuracy and
ss.-.sa 4 Sss x 81