157 



Atoms for Peace has been unique as a form of international coopera- 

 tion. 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 spe- 

 cific actions of governments, rather than of scientific communities, to 

 share the benefits of an important new science and technology. 



The basic concept of Atoms for Peace was to draw on two major 

 U.S. assets: (1) the knowledge of peaceful applications of nuclear 

 energy; and (2) the industrial capacity of the United States to pro- 

 duce in large quantities, and at reasonable cost, the essential materials 

 of the nuclear age, especially enriched uranium. 



The costs to the United States of undertaking Atoms for Peace were 

 to be minimal, inasmuch as the technology to be made available was 

 under development for domestic use, while the plants and equipment al- 

 read}* existed to supply the essential materials. Most of the capital in- 

 vestment in special factories, laboratories, and test sites had already 

 been made; thus, the U.S. contribution of nuclear resources to Atoms 

 for Peace was limited largeh T to costs of materials and labor. 



In retrospect over 15 years, Atoms for Peace has involved only mod- 

 est financial aid by the United States. U.S. cooperation has been flexi- 

 ble, designed to meet the needs and capabilities of countries at various 

 stages of technological and economic development. With the develop- 

 ing countries, Atoms for Peace cooperation has tended to center on non- 

 power uses of nuclear energy, particularly use of radioisotopes in medi- 

 cine and agriculture. With the advanced countries, particularly in 

 Europe, nuclear power has been the dominant theme of cooperation. 52 



Not everyone has been sanguine about Atoms for Peace. W. Sterling 

 Cole, after his experience as the first Director-General of the Interna- 

 tional Atomic Energy Agency, was pessimistic. In the early 1960's he 

 judged that the Atoms for Peace program no longer existed; that the 

 United States gave only lip service.to the concepts of Atoms for Peace; 

 that it was not a distinct entity ; and that it had become submerged in 

 foreign aid along with other types of U.S. foreign assistance. He hoped 

 that the President would revive and rejuvenate Atoms for Peace by 

 setting it apart as a special type of assistance. 53 Whether Atoms for 

 Peace has fared as poorly as this is a subjective question. As Cole has 

 said, no separate agency was ever given the clearcut responsibility for 

 carrying out the Atoms for Peace program. The AEC may have in- 

 herited the responsibility, but it did not receive a specific legislative 

 charter to take a strong promotional position. 



62 II. id., p. 334. 



M Testimony of W. Sterling Cole. In U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Atomic Fnertrv, 

 Hearing*, United States Policy Toward the International Atomic Energy Aaencu S7th 

 Cong , 2.1. Sess., 1962, p. :;:;. 



