190 



As for the State Department's ideas about the future of the Agency, 

 it preferred that IAEA concentrate on technical service functions : 129 



We most explicitly agree that the Agency is the most appropriate instrument 

 for establishing uniform health and safety standards, for working out uniform 

 rules for liability and indemnification for atomic accidents; for developing and 

 publishing international standards for waste management; and for conducting 

 research and calling scientific conferences on problems which require interna- 

 tional planning and coordination. 



Queried about Dr. Smyth's three policy questions, Mr. Cleveland in 

 reply raised questions of his own. He said : 130 



. . . Sure, the United States wants to support the development of nuclear power 

 around the world. But do we want to build into our aid program a preference 

 for nuclear power as opposed to other forms of power in power development? 

 This is a more complex and difficult and interesting question that really has to 

 be looked at in terms of the economic program country by country. 



How important does the United States consider safeguards? Very. This is in- 

 deed the most important single aspect as we look into the future of the Inter- 

 national Agency's program. This is more than any one thing the raison d'etre of 

 an international agency. 



la the United States really going to use the Agency? Yes, we are going to use 

 the Agency. But whether we will use it in a particular case, given all the con- 

 ditions in that case, can only be determined when you look at the case. That 

 is a complicated answer to some simple looking questions, but Dr. Smyth knows 

 how complicated his questions are. 



Cleveland's own questions went unanswered at the hearings and re- 

 main largely unanswered today. This difference between Professor 

 Smyth who wished to channel U.S. nuclear technical assistance though 

 the IAEA and the Department of State which saw a continuing utility 

 in bilateral as well as international channels illustrates the difference 

 in approach of an announced advocate of an international agency and 

 measures to strengthen it in contrast with the pragmatic approach of 

 U.S. diplomacy which views both bilateral and international arrange- 

 ments as useful for U.S. purposes. This same pattern of bilateral and 

 multilateral arrangements for technical assistance and cooperation has 

 appeared in the space program. There too the United States uses bi- 

 lateral and multilateral agreements. Able to use either approach, U.S. 

 diplomacy is not tied to the success or failure of one method or the 

 other, but can choose the combination that best fits its interests. 



AN AEC REACTION" 



Commissioner Leland J. Haworth welcomed the Smyth Commit- 

 tee's reaffirmation of a policy of strong support for the International 

 Agency, for use of atomic energy as an element of U.S. foreign policy, 

 and for support of the Agency as a means to advance U.S. policy. 131 

 He agreed that one way to develop the competence of the 

 Agency was to transfer to it as many as possible of the AEC activities 

 then being carried out through bilateral agreements. But the AEC 

 was not ready to commit itself to this idea. As to safeguards, the Com- 

 mission endorsed the need for a continued effort to obtain a uniform, 

 worldwide, effective system, ideally to be administered by the IAEA. 

 But the Agency's system could apply only to materials received 

 through the Agency or to those voluntarily placed under its system. 



"•Ibid., p. 1". 

 «*>Ibld., pp. 1S-19. 

 131 Ibid., p. 19. 



