Extracts from a confidential report from William P. Fay
to Seán Murphy (Dublin)
'European Co-operation for the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy'
(Secret) (121A:8/56) (Copy)

Since the report of Working Party No. 10 on ‘The Possibilities of Action in the Field of Nuclear Energy’ was published shortly before Christmas, it has been widely welcomed as a remarkable achievement in so short a time and is the subject of consideration and study in all relevant ministries throughout Europe.

[matter omitted]

2. The opening debate in the Council was, of course, only of a very preliminary character and has been followed by a more detailed study at the Heads of Delegation meetings the first of which took place on 17th January and forms the subject of my report of 23rd January.¹ It was important to observe, however, that at the Council meeting the report of the Working Party No.10 was welcomed in particular by the delegates of Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and ourselves. Each of these delegates, as well as those of Portugal, Turkey and Greece, stated that their Administrations were still examining the report but were generally favourable to the idea of co-operation within the OEEC for the purposes in view. I intervened in the debate to express the same attitude, on your instructions. During my stay in Dublin at Christmas I had an opportunity of discussions with several of our authorities interested in this matter and ascertained that our situation was similar to that of many of the other European countries, namely, that it could be foreseen that conventional forms of energy might become exhausted in the relatively near future and that to provide for our growing demand for power it would be necessary to consider the possibilities of using nuclear energy. In this connection we had to view the offer of the USA to provide half the cost of a pilot reactor. The Minister had already stated publicly that we should be glad to co-operate with our fellow countrymen in the North of Ireland in developing this new source of power. We were, therefore, very interested in the idea of European co-operation to the same end, though we recognized that, because of our geographical isolation from the European continent, certain forms of collaboration which might be of great interest to a group of European countries, with common land frontiers, would not necessarily present the same interest for us.

[matter omitted]

The French delegate was, of course, in the embarrassing position that he had no Government from which he could get firm instructions but it was clear that the representatives of the ‘Six’ did not wish to prejudice themselves in any way in appearing to support the OEEC proposals until they had had an opportunity of a further discussion together in relation to the proposal to set up the European Atomic Pool to be known as ‘Euratom’.²

4. This proposal appears to be still under study and the Brussels Conference has not issued a definitive report on the subject. On the other hand, M. Jean Monnet, with a group of industrialists and Trade Union leaders mainly, it would appear, representatives of European Socialist parties, have met together in Paris recently and formed a committee for ‘The United States of Europe’. This Committee had several meetings and at their conclusion adopted a resolution and a common declaration the texts of which were published in ‘Le Monde’ of the 20th January. For convenience of reference, I am sending the relevant press cutting herewith. These proposals and the programme of action continued in the common declaration appear, however, to go considerably further even than the ideas already canvassed in Brussels, but they go in the same direction. It is clear that a certain tension must necessarily arise between the forms of collaboration envisaged, on the one hand by those who advocate inter-governmental collaboration on the lines suggested in the report of our Working Party No.10 and on the other, by those who, like M. Monnet’s Committee and the ‘Six’, look towards a Supranational Authority and a common market as proposed in Brussels.
5. What are the main differences between those two methods? In his opening remarks, when introducing the report of his Working Party, Mr. Nicolaides,³ Chairman of the Working Party, set them out clearly. He began by pointing out that technically there was no difference between them. They both recognized that the technical data showed that Europe and, indeed, the whole world, was on the eve of what would probably be a new industrial revolution of vast proportions, opening almost unlimited vistas towards the provision of power and energy for mankind. The difference between the two methods of approach was rather an institutional one. These differences could be summarised as follows:
   1. Whereas the ‘Six’ favoured the setting up of a Common Authority with powers which have been described as ‘supra national’ (similar to those conferred upon the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community), the OEEC Working Party went on the assumption upon which our Organisation is based, of inter-governmental co-operation. They propose the setting up of a Steering Committee representative of all member countries who were anxious to take part. The OEEC Council could, however, by use of the procedure provided by Article 14 of the Convention of 1948, confer upon this Committee a power to decide certain matters by majority vote. That is a matter of major importance which calls for separate consideration.
   2. Whereas the ‘Six’ envisaged that the common European Atomic Authority would be financed by a common fund involving the obligatory participation of all the members, the Working Party proposed that each separate project for collaboration in the development of nuclear energy should be specially financed. This would involve complete freedom for each member country of the OEEC either to participate in the project or to express themselves as not interested, under Article 14 (already referred to).
   3. Finally, whereas the ‘Six’ foresaw the extremely important matter of security as part of the control which could be exercised through common institutions – they envisage, it seems, a common pool for the purchase and the distribution of fissile materials, – the Working Party confines itself to recommending that the control of such materials should be exercised at the point where they were produced in common enterprises undertaken by all or some group of member countries interested therein.
6. From numerous conversations which I have recently had with colleagues in the OEEC, it seems clear that the divergence shown between these two approaches will not easily be bridged. There is a very strong body of ‘European’ opinion, especially in Belgium and the Netherlands, which sees the future of European institutions and particularly in connection with the common development of atomic energy, as impossible of realisation save on the same lines as the Coal and Steel Community. It is well recognized that this is the view particularly of Messrs. Spaak and Beyen.⁴ Their partners in the ‘Six’, however, do not appear to be equally firmly convinced of the necessity for a supra-national organisation of this character, and the appearance of the report of the Working Party No.10, which has come out well ahead of any similar report from Brussels, has triumphantly demonstrated the value of the OEEC and its great possibilities for collaboration on a flexible basis. It has also shown that the OEEC can get things done quickly. It is somewhat ironic, in all the circumstances, that one of the most valuable members of the Working Party was M. Ockrent,⁵ the Belgian delegate to OEEC, who is a particularly close collaborator of M. Spaak, having been formerly his Chef de Cabinet. It is, in fact, fairly widely accepted (probably with good reason) that M. Ockrent is more favourable to the OEEC approach, but that his Minister retains his long-standing dislike for the Organisation. So strong is this feeling (which, it is said, dates from the early days of the Organisation when M. Spaak failed in his ambition to be chosen as a kind of ‘political director’ for the OEEC) that it is credibly reported that when Mr. Spaak saw the Working Party’s report, he admitted that it was a very good one – possibly better than they would produce in Brussels – but that he would have none of it because it was a product of the OEEC.

[matter omitted]

9. Whatever we may think of these arguments on one side or the other, I would suggest that it is of great importance to the future of the OEEC to make it clear to the ‘Six’ that those of us who have no intention of joining the supra-national authority and a common market for nuclear power are in no way disposed to put any obstacles in the path of those who do. Our object, in fact, must be to show that the OEEC approach and that of the Brussels Powers are simply different means of approaching the same objective. This, incidentally, is completely in line with the policy which Ireland has always pursued in the Council of Europe. Our representatives have on numerous occasions in both fora declared their willingness to see any group of European countries who wish to do so, proceed to integrate their political or economic policies and institutions in any way they thought fit; and we have repeatedly affirmed that it is not our wish to stand in their way even if we cannot participate in their activities. From this point of view it will be immediately seen that Article 14 of the Convention of 1948 assumes a new and perhaps critical importance. In this connection may I draw your attention to my report 128 of the 15th November⁶ on this very subject. Employment of Article 14 in the present context, whereby a group of member countries could proceed to some project for the peaceful use of atomic energy in common while others declared themselves not to be interested, would enable the OEEC to furnish a framework wherein the Brussels Powers could continue to work on their own plans, with the blessing of all. There would be no tension or conflict between the two bodies; rather would there be sympathy and understanding. Moreover, the results of such activities would in this way become available for all, including those who did not participate. The modalities of application of Article 14, however, have yet to be worked out and will require a separate report. In the interval, with your agreement, I have been asked to assist in the juridical studies directed towards this purpose and have done so in the belief that you will be fully in agreement with the recommendations, I have ventured to put forward before you in this paragraph.