260 



in establishing new patterns of international cooperation, and in strengthening 

 observance of international law. 



As to whether U.S. foreign policy interests preferred a multina- 

 tional venture or separate national ventures, the AEC said it was 

 preferable for the Europeans to go to the multinational route and build 

 a plant under adequate safeguards. Commissioner Ramey agreed that 

 cooperation could help rationalize the future expansion of U.S. and 

 foreign enrichment capacity and would provide the United States 

 with revenues that would otherwise be lost through the establishment 

 of completely independent foreign efforts. He said : 314 



It is worthy of npte that the French have recently announced plans to initiate 

 detailed economic and technical studies on construction of a diffusion plant . . . 

 and planned for operation in the late 1970s. If such a plant were constructed 

 as a multinational effort, it might fit into our plans in this program, and I gather 

 that the French would be interested in exploring possible cooperation along 

 these lines with the United States. 



Clearly, other countries are determined to acquire an independent enrichment 

 capability and will be successful to some degree in this effort. Thus, under a 

 sound businesslike arrangement, I believe we stand more to gain than to lose by 

 joining these foreign developments rather than by remaining outside. 



The State Department confirmed the U.S. interest in the multi- 

 national approach, advising the Joint Committee that : 315 



First, we assume that the cost of the gaseous diffusion plant is such that it 

 probably would be more attractive to a multinational group than it would be to 

 a single nation. Secondly, we feel our interest would be better served if the 

 enrichment facilities are built by a multinational group rather than under the 

 control of a single country. So the whole approach we have t in mind is to en- 

 courage the multinational approach. 



Most recently, the AEC reported at Geneva in 1971 that the 

 United States had notified certain nations of Europe and the Pacific 

 Basin of its willingness to enter into exploratory discussions on the 

 possibility of a multinational uranium enrichment project. To support 

 such a venture, the United States would be prepared to make avail- 

 able, for fair compensation, the advanced gaseous diffusion tech- 

 nology and know-how of the AEC for the establishment of one or 

 more multinational projects for the construction of separations plants 

 of substantial capacity, subject to appropriate controls. 319 



According to the nuclear trade press, AEC and State Depart- 

 ment officials met informally at Geneva with representatives of 10 

 nations and the European Economic Community to define earlier 

 announcements that the AEC was ready to talk about sharing U.S. 

 enrichment technology. The United States reportedly sought to es- 

 tablish whether the EEC was absolutely determined to build its ura- 

 nium enrichment plant in Europe or whether it would consider another 

 site that might have economic advantages of lower power costs. 317 



In separate messages during August, the EEC nations and the 

 United Kingdom expressed varying degrees of enthusiam for estab- 

 lishing a multinational gaseous diffusion plant with U.S. technology, 

 and called on the EEC to conduct formal talks with the United Stales 

 on their behalf. The EEC message, expressing a noncommittal will- 

 ingness to talk, noted the AEC/s diffusion data would be included in 



31 «T\S. Congress, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Hearings, 1EG luthorteing Legis- 

 lation Finrnl fear 1972, op. rit., p. 2247. 



w Ibid., p. 2267. 



*i«U.S. Atomic Bnerpv Commission, U.S. Claims Capability to Meet droning Demands 

 for Uranium Enriching Services, op. Hi., p. 2. 



'"Nucleonics Week, vol. 12 (September 9, 1971), p. 



