[y]

within the framework of the Brennan statement. Brown evaded an
answer and simply repeated his previous statement of negotiating
with the Russians.

The next day, Friday, September 15th, was again devoted to
plenary session which followed by-now familiar lines. The Soviet
deblegation pressed certain themes: complete and general disarmament;
the threat to security represented by Germany; the need to admit/China
to the United Nations. The American members of the continuing committee
had urged us not to raise controversial issues and to confine working
group reports to issues directly relevant to disarmament. Nevertheless,
Working Group #4 included a statement which put Germany into a special
category and implied that Germany's status could not even by changed
by negotiations. Working Group #5 recommended the admission of Commun-
ist China to the United Nations. Bowie objected to the reference to
Germany and in particular raised the question of Germany's internal
or external borders.

He was strongly attacked by one of the Russian s (Khvostov).
The only American to support him was I. The Soviet members took the
position that they would not agree to a phrase which said that all dis-
putes should be settled by negotiation unless there was also the
invidious reference to Germany in the paragraph. It was finally
decided that during a break a small subcommittee composed of two
Russians and two Americans should be formed to redraft the paragraph.
sub-

When the/committee returned, the wording had been changed but the
meaning was essentially the same and it was accepted by the conference.

["meaning was essentially the same and it was accepted by the conference.", "When the committee returned, the working had been changed but the Russians and two Americans should be formed to reformat the paragraph.", "decided that during a break a small subcommittee composed of two invigilatory reference to Germany in the paragraph. It was finally decided that during a break a small subcommittee composed of two invigilatory reference to Germany in the paragraph which said that all discussion that they would not agree to a phrase which

In the afternoon session when Working Group #5 reported, I took
exception to the recommendation which strongly implied that Communist
China should be admitted to the United Nations. I took the position
that it was inappropriate to raise only one political issue since I
could think of several others, such as unilateral Soviet acts in Ger-
many, that were also harmful to disarmament discussions. There was
an impassioned reply by Philip Noel-Baker, who argued that it was
the sense of humanity that Communist China be admitted and that he
could not understand my objection. No American supported my position
and no Russian needed to defend his. The working group report was
accepted by the conference.

Also during the afternoon session, Rabinowitch showed me a
brief paragraph which referred to the need for negotiations and asked
me whether I agreed with it in substance. I told him that I could
not object to the phrases on their own but could not agree to any
statement incorporating them unless it referred also to the danger
of unilateral political acts. I also told him that it was my under-
standing that we were proceeding on the basis of the Brennan state-
ment.

During the evening, there was a banquet with many toasts to
Soviet-American friendship. The next morning, Saturday, September
16th, we assembled for the final plenary session. We were confronted
with a statement which coupled the essence of the original Brennan
communique with a summary of the original Rabinowitch statement. In
short, it described the conference and included an appeal for peace,
friendship, amity and immediate negotiations conducted sincerely and

friendliness, amiity and immediate negotiations conducted sincerely and
outward, it described the conference and included an appeal for peace,
commitment with a summary of the original Krasnowitch statement. In
with a statement which coupled the essence of the original Breman
idea, we assembled for the final plenary session. We were confronted
Soviet-American friendliness. The next morning, Saturday, September
During the evening, there was a pamphlet with many toasts to
men.

standing that we were proceeding on the basis of the Breman state-
of unilateral political acts. I also told him that it was my under-
statement incorporating them unless it referred also to the danger
not object to the phrases on their own but could not agree to any
me whether I agreed with it in substance. I told him that I could
proud paragraph which referred to the need for negotiations and asked
Viao during the afternoon session, Krasnowitch showed me a
accepted by the conference.

and no Russian needed to defend me. The working Group report was
said not to understand my objection. No American supported my position
the sense of humanity that Communist China be admitted and that he
an indebted reply by Philip Noël-Baker, who argued that it was
many, that were also harmful to disarmament discussions. There was
could think of several others, such as unilateral Soviet acts in Ger-
that it was inappropriate to raise only one political issue since I
China should be admitted to the United Nations. I took the position
exception to the recommendation which strongly implied that Communist
In the afternoon session when Working Group #2 reported, I took

-6-

-7-

is
purposefully. I had not seen this statement before and it was my
impression that it was completely contrary to what the American group
had decided two days earlier.

Harrison Brown opened the meeting by stating that it was the
policy of the Pugwash movement not to pass resolutions which were
opposed by a substantial minority. Doty read a brief and ambiguous
statement which could be interpreted as a regret that the nuclear
test question had been raised at all or a hint that it should be
included in the final statement. Bowie then raised the issue of
whether there should be a substantive statement. He argued that a simple
communique would be the most appropriate step. Brown suggested in
reply that we go through the substantive statement line-by-line to see
if there were any objections and if there were, we could still face
the question of the communique.

Lipson said that there were many who might be willing to go
through the substantive statement line-by-line who would still prefer
a communique and he therefore suggested that the matter be put to a
vote. Topchiev intervened to call for a confidence vote in the continuing
committee which had drafted the statement. He also said that it was
within the spirit of the Pugwash movement to issue a substantive
statement after a deliberation. I replied that I could not accept an
appeal to the spirit of the Pugwash movement since I was attending a
conference, not joining a movement.

I took strong exception to describing the meetings as a movement.
No American supported this position. Finally, after about an hour of
this discussion, the chairman, Brown, ruled that there would be no vote
on the issue of communique versus substantive statement. Rather we would

on the issue of commune versus subversive statement. Rather we would
this discussion, the chairman, Brown, ruled that there would be no vote
No American endorsed this position. Finally, after about an hour of
I took strong exception to describing the meetings as a movement,
conference, not joining a movement.

aboard to the spirit of the Pugwash movement since I was attending a
statement after a deliberation. I replied that I could not accept an
within the spirit of the Pugwash movement to take a subversive
committee which had drafted the statement. He also said that it was
vote. Tobrien intervened to call for a confidence vote in the continuing
a commune and he therefore suggested that the matter be put to a
through the subversive statement line-by-line who would act still better
Ribbon said that there were many who might be willing to go
the question of the commune.

if there were any objections and it there were, we could still face
rely that we go through the subversive statement line-by-line to see
commune would be the most appropriate step. Brown suggested in
whether there should be a subversive statement. He argued that a simple
included in the final statement. Bowles then raised the issue of
test question had been raised at all or a hint that it should be
statement which could be interpreted as a regret that the unclear
obscured by a superfluous minority. Doty read a brief and ambiguous
policy of the Pugwash movement not to pass resolutions which were
Harrison Brown opened the meeting by reading that it was the
had decided two days earlier.

impression that it was completely contrary to what the American Group
burboeafily. I had not seen this statement before and it was my

-7-

-8-

proceed by going through the substantive statement line-by-line. He appealed to those who would oppose it anyway to be most restrained in their comment. In going through the document line-by-line the pattern of the previous few days was repeated: namely, that there were usually a sufficient number of Westerners to defend the Soviet position so that the Soviets could be very sparing in their comments.

For example, I questioned the reference to the previous week's conference on scientific cooperation on the ground that I had not read its communique and that it seemed to me irrelevant. A British participant asked whether I was opposed to scientific cooperation and did I not think the Arctic treaty had been helpful in promoting international understanding. Some others objected to the phrase that the framework of the conference had been general and complete disarmament, and recommended that the title of the conference, namely "disarmament and world security" be used instead. The Soviets objected violently, supported by many of the British delegation, and finally a compromise solution was accomplished which did not seem to me to cure the original objections.

The debate then turned to the paragraphs dealing with substance. Bowie made a very strong statement about the essential asymmetry of calling for peace and friendship and settling disputes on the basis of the revulsion for war on the one hand without any reference to the political disputes on the other. He was not supported by any other American.

Pavlichenko replied with the implication that Bowie had been connected with the foreign policy of Dulles and that the world had two choices: security through an armaments race and security through disarmament.

["two choices: security through an armament race and security through connected with the foreign policy of Dulles and that the world had to bePKKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpKpK

disarmament. Since Bowie was obviously identified with security
through an arms race he was not the best KM judge of the paragraph.

I replied that Pavlichenko's interpretation was precisely the
reason why I opposed this paragraph. There was no sense in making
a statement which did not include the Soviet view on the permanence
of conflict and which did not refer to the dangers of unilateral
political acts. I said that I would not sign any statement which
had such an imbalance. A Canadian at this point, Polanyi, suggested
a solution by which everything in the substantive paragraph except
the last line would be eliminated. Before the Soviets could reply
to this, Rabinowitch intervened to say that if this was accepted,
we should all go home.

A recess was then taken in which Rabinowitch and Brown were to
meet with Sissakyan and Topchiev to see if they could redraft the
paragraph. During this recess Rabinowitch came to me and asked me
whether, since I was likely to object anyway, I would mind having
an asterisk after my name saying I had not signed because of my
governmental connection. I refused and Rabinowitch rejoined his
drafting committee.

When the session reassembled, Brown announced that only a
half hour was left for deliberation and if no agreement could be
reached on the paragraph we would simply have to disband. The
compromise paragraph eliminated appeals for negotiation but
contained the same asymmetry to which I had objected in the first
place, that is, it made no reference to the political atmosphere
in which disarmament had to take place. Since it was obvious that the
paragraph would be passed and since there was so little time left,

paragraph would be based and since there was so little time left, in which disarmament had to take place. Since it was obvious that the place, that is, it made no reference to the political atmosphere contained the same asymmetry to which I had objected in the first compromise paragraph eliminated abeles for negotiation put reached on the paragraph we would simply have to disband. The half hour was left for deliberation and it no agreement could be when the session reassembled. Brown announced that only a drafting committee.

Governmental connection. I returned and Kapinowitch rejoined me an aterisk after my name saying I had not signed because of my whether, since I was likely to object anyway, I would mind having paragraph. During this recess Kapinowitch came to me and asked me meet with Breakaway and Toboltz to see if they could reattach the recess was then taken in which Kapinowitch and Brown were to

to this, Kapinowitch intervened to say that it this was accepted, the last line would be eliminated. Before the Soviets could reply a solution by which everything in the substantive paragraph except had each an imbalance. A Canadian at this point, Polanyi, suggested political acts. I said that I would not sign any statement which of conflict and which did not refer to the dangers of unilateral a statement which did not include the Soviet view on the permanence reason why I opposed this paragraph. There was no sense in making I replied that Pavlicenko's interpretation was precisely the through an arms race he was not the best of the judges of the paragraph. disarmament. Since Bowle was obviously identified with security

-8-

I refrained from further comment.

During the vote, Bowie, Lipson, Brennan and myself refused to join in the resolution. Since some people felt that the phrase "refused to join in the resolution" was harsh, we agreed to "did not join the resolution." We insisted that the HHHHHH word "abstained" should not be used because it might give a misleading impression.

Most of the conference participants left shortly afterwards.
Since I wanted to get some rest, I stayed overnight, until Sunday,
September 17th. I went to the secretariat in the evening of Saturday
to pick up a few copies of the statement and found that those who had
refused to join the resolution were listed in two, rather than in
one, category. Bowie was listed as opposed. Lipson, Brennan and I
were listed as abstaining. This of course gave the impression that
we were basically in favor but just did not wish to vote. It also
gave the impression that only one man had opposed the resolution,
he being a former associate of Dulles. I called Rabinowitch and
asked him to explain this. He said that he and Brown thought this
reflected our sentiments. I told him that if this was not changed
in twenty minutes I would call the New York Times and dictate a state-
ment on their parliamentary procedures. In any case I insisted on
being listed in the same group as Bowie. Rabinowitch promised to
change the list to accord with the original phraseology. I have
not seen the actual statement as it was finally distributed.

not seen the actual statement as it was finally distributed.
change the list to accord with the original phraseology. I have
being listed in the same group as Bowie. Rapinowitch promised to
ment on their parliamentary procedures. In any case I infatated on
in twenty minutes I would call the New York Times and dictate a state-
reflected our sentiments. I told him that it this was not changed
asked him to explain this. He said that he and Brown thought this
be being a former associate of Bulles. I called Rapinowitch and
save the impression that only one man had obeyed the resolution,
we were practically in favor but just did not wish to vote. It also
were listed as apathetic. This of course gave the impression that
one, category. Bowie was listed as obeyed. Ribbon, Brennan and I
refused to join the resolution were listed in two, rather than in
to pick up a few copies of the statement and found that those who had
September 17th. I went to the secretariat in the evening of Saturday
Since I wanted to get some news, I stayed overnight until 2 o'clock,
Most of the conference participants felt shortly afterwards.

Most of the conference participants felt shortly afterwards.
be need because it might give a misleading impression.
resolution." We infatated that the MEXICAN word "apathetic" should not
to join in the resolution was bad, we agreed to "did not join the
join in the resolution. Since some people felt that the phrase "refused
to join from further comment.
During the vote, Bowie, Ribbon, Brennan and Mcelwelt refused to

-10-