1820 



negotiations would have helped smooth the world's passage into the 

 era of interdependence. 



Worth special note is the fact that the United States, at that time 

 the sole possessor of the atomic "secret," and historically committed 

 to the assertion of sovereign independence, should have taken the lead 

 in proposing to yield up both the secret and its sovereignty to inter- 

 national control of this ultimate weapon. It is both ironic and tragic 

 that the Soviet Union, principal exponent of Marxist internationali-^m 

 and abnegation of "capitalist wars," should have rebuffed the overture 

 in a spirit of intransigent nationalism and sovereignty. The failure 

 to reach agreement lay, perhaps, on both sides: in the inability of the 

 United States to foresee or communicate the con-^equences of a new 

 agreement and in the unwillingness of the Soviet Union to forego the 

 early prospects of its own nuclear arsenal and East European hegemon}^ 

 for the larger but more remote chance of global amity. 



Yet, despite the inability of the two leading nations to reconcile 

 or moderate their differences in the face of the ultimate weapon, the 

 subsequent spread of the weapon itself creates a global impasse that is 

 forcing all nations toward interdependence and away from the inde- 

 pendence that obstructed the first moves to control the weapon. As 

 the next case shows, bits of sovereignty are being yielded up in the 

 face of the general need to keep the weapon itself and all its associated 

 technology from bringing about an inadvertent holocaust. 



CASE two: commercial NUCLEAE power in EUROPE 



The atom bomb signaled the world's entry into the Age of Inter- 

 dependence in a context of common defense and security; the context 

 of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy is one of development and 

 growth — though still with a nagging concern over the security prob- 

 lem posed by reactor byproducts. President Eisenhower's Atoms for 

 Peace initiative embraced both aspects: 



The initial objectives of Atoms for Peace were to help contribute to a more 

 stable and peaceful world by sharing with other nations the benefits of nuclear 

 science and technology, to improve" U.S. rehvtions with other nations through 

 such sharing, and to minimize pressures for independent and potentially hazardous 

 nuclear programs by cooperating in peaceful uses under conditions which would 

 discourage diversion of atomic materials and equipment to military purposes. 



In recent hearings before the House Subcommittee on International Cooperation 

 in Science and Space of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, the 

 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission observed that these objectives continue to be 

 valid. With the passage of years, additional objectives have taken on increased 

 importance. For example, the Atoms for Peace program has enabled the United 

 States to take part in the rapidly expanding world market for nuclear goods and 

 services. The program is also "providing an invaluable mechanism for a world- 

 wide approach to health, safety, and environmental problems which transcend 

 national boundaries." *''* • 



The President's proposal also established a precedent for intergov- 

 ernmental action and a partial relinquishing of sovereign t}^ in a major 

 peacetime scientific and technological endeavor: 



Atoms for Peace has been unique as a form of international cooperation. While 

 cooperation across national boundaries has occurred in many scientific fields, 

 international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy came about as 

 the result of deliberate decisions and specific actions of governments, rather than 

 of scientific communities, to share the benefits of an important new science and 

 technology. "5 



<74 Donnelly, Commncial Nuclear Power in Europe, vol. I, p. 156. 

 <" Donnelly, Commercial Nuclear Power in Europe, vol. I, p. 157. 



