179 



ing the adoption of the U.S.-originated draft statute without substan- 

 tial alteration and with the widest possible international support. 

 Despite the widely differing political attitudes and stages of economic 

 development of the negotiating nations and the need to reconcile their 

 divergent interests, U.S. negotiators had "kept intact every element of 

 the President's proposals without sacrifice of substance or principle." 97 

 U.S. Ambassador James Wadsworth, who had headed the U.S. nego- 

 tiations, concurred in Secretary Dulles' assessment. Speaking of the 

 statute produced by the U.S. negotiators, he said : 98 



. . . Functionally, it will make possible an Agency with broad authority to 

 assist in research and development in the peaceful uses field ; possess and dis- 

 tribute nuclear materials ; carry out the pooling of such materials at. the request 

 of member states as proposed by the President: establish and operate its own 

 facilities: organize and apply a system of minimum safeguards on request to 

 bilateral or multinational arrangements or the atomic energy activities of a mem- 

 ber state ; conduct its financial management on a flexible but business-like basis 

 in the interest of the entire membership ; establish an appropriate relationship 

 with the United Nations and other international organizations; and take into 

 consideration recognized standards of international conduct in connection with 

 the admission of new members. 



THE ROLE OF SCIENTISTS IN THE NEGOTIATIONS 



Although the International Agency evolved out of the discovery of 

 fission by scientists, the scientific community had relatively little part 

 in the negotiations. Individual atomic scientists were members of dele- 

 gations to the negotiations and advised the diplomats. Lacking, how- 

 ever, were substantial organized attempts by the scientific community 

 to shape the functions and activities of the Agency. The European 

 nuclear scientist. Professor Gunnar Banders, complained in I960." 



Scientists do not generally know what an enormous effort lies behind the cre- 

 ation of a full-fledged international agency. They also do not know what an 

 irresistible momentum lies in international organizations. It may be difficult to 

 create one, but it is practically impossible to terminate one in peacetime. It is 

 therefore only a question of the degree of usefulness of these indestructible giants 

 which can be influenced. And here is a point of criticism of ourselves, the scien- 

 tists and technologists of the world — we have not as a group realized the potential 

 power of the instrument created, and have failed to follow up with action our 

 decade of speaking and writing about the duty of scientists. 



With few exceptions, we have not even tried to influence the selection of rep- 

 resentatives of our countries for important positions in the Agency organs. No 

 organized attempt by scientists has been made to make the Agency promote the 

 ideas or the programs about which we have talked and written. Scientists who 

 have gone there have usually done so without any knowledge of the real purpose 

 of the Agency. Most scientists do not know whether the Agency needs top-notch 

 scientific specialists or scientific organizers and administrators. The last question 

 would probably be answered 50-50, one way or the other, even by the present 

 Board of Governors. 



Some Insights From Congressional Review 



President Eisenhower sent the International Statute for the Inter- 

 national Atomic Energy Agency to Congress on March 21, 1957. The 

 Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification on June 18, 1957. The 

 arguments and reasons advanced in support of the International Stat- 



97 U.S. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations and Senate Members of the Joint Com- 

 mittee on Atomic Energy, Hearings, Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, 

 op. eit, p. 4. 



9R Ibid., p. 46. 



"° Gunnar Randers "The Scientist's View," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (April, 1960), 

 p. 164. 



