The issue of the prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons, which emerged more than three decades ago, is becoming increasingly relevant in the context of the struggle to further defuse international tensions. At a time when the Soviet Union is undertaking new initiatives in the interests of peace, curbing the arms race and disarmament, it is particularly important to study the previous experience of the struggle to achieve these noble goals. Looking at the positions of Western Powers at various stages of this struggle helps to better understand their current policies and tactics on disarmament issues.

Soviet historians have devoted serious attention to studying the Soviet Union's struggle to ban atomic weapons from the very beginning. 1 Their works analyze two opposing directions in solving this most important problem - the USSR and the socialist countries, on the one hand, and the Western powers, primarily the United States, on the other, and analyze the plans, projects and proposals put forward by representatives of capitalist countries in various UN bodies. The works of A. I. Ignatov 2 and V. A. Tarasenko 3 , as well as the collective work "The Soviet Union in the United Nations" (Moscow , 1965), are devoted to a critical review of the position of the United States and other Western powers in 1945-1949. These works also address the question of France's approach to solving the nuclear problem in the first years of the UN's activity. However, until now, the position of France on the atomic problem at the UN in 1945-1949 has not been the object of special research in our literature. As far as bourgeois historiography is concerned, the works of the American historian L. Scheinman, the French scientists B. Goldschmidt, R. Meyer, and J. Scheinman are of the greatest interest for understanding the atomic policy of France. Klein4 do not aim to review France's position at the UN on the issue of atomic weapons.

1 For more information, see V. F. Petrovsky. Soviet scientists on the place and role of the UN in the modern world. Voprosy Istorii, 1972, N5, as well as articles by V. Israelyan, A. Alekseev, and V. Matveev in the journal Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn (1974-1976).

2 A. I. Ignatov. Atomnaya problema i politika SSHA [The Atomic Problem and US Policy], Moscow, 1960.

3 V. A. Tarasenko. The Atomic Problem in US Foreign Policy (1945-1949). Kiev, 1958.

4 B. Goldschmidt. L'aventure atomique. P. 1962; ejusd. Les rivalites atomiques 1939 - 1966. P. 1967; J. Klein, L'enterprise du desarmement depuis 1945. P. 1964; L. Scheinman. Atomic Energy Policy in France under the Fourth Republic. Princeton. 1965; R. Mayer. Vers le desarmement. Etapes, projets, problemes. P. 1973.

page 86

This article examines the French policy on this issue in 1945-1949 - that is, at a time when the ruling circles of the United States first had a monopoly in the production of atomic weapons, and then lost it5 .

Striving for lasting peace and cooperation with all peoples, the Soviet Union, since the advent of the atomic bomb, has waged a stubborn struggle, both inside and outside the UN, for the prohibition and destruction of atomic weapons. The US ruling circles, on the other hand, sought to consolidate their monopoly on atomic weapons in order to use it as a means to achieve their expansionist goals. As for France, its position on the atomic problem in the UN, as well as on other issues, was formed under the influence of a foreign policy course aimed until May 1947 at developing cooperation with the Soviet Union, and then clearly weakened.

In the first months after the war, it was still possible to reach mutually agreed decisions of the great Powers that were part of the anti-Hitler coalition. The influence of the growing and strengthened peace-loving forces, their pressure on Western powers, in particular on the issue of banning weapons of mass destruction, also affected. The beginning of post-war negotiations on the prohibition of atomic weapons and on the use of atomic energy only for peaceful purposes was laid at the Moscow meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the USSR, the United States and Great Britain in December 1945. Thanks to the efforts of the Soviet Union, an agreement was reached to recommend that the first session of the UN General Assembly consider adopting a resolution providing for the creation of the UN Atomic Energy Commission. In addition, it was agreed to request the other two permanent members of the Security Council, France and China, as well as Canada, to join the Moscow Meeting in jointly introducing the draft resolution .6 The Provisional Government of France, which was not directly involved in the Moscow conference, officially approved this decision and accepted the proposal. The French press emphasized the importance of this initiative, as well as the fact that France supported the project to establish an Atomic Energy Commission .7
The first session of the General Assembly on January 24, 1946, after a brief discussion, unanimously adopted a resolution on the establishment of the Atomic Energy Commission, recommended by the Moscow Meeting and submitted on behalf of the five permanent members of the Security Council and Canada. The Commission was to develop and submit to the Security Council for discussion a proposal on the removal of nuclear and all other major weapons of mass destruction from national armaments, on the control of atomic energy and its use exclusively for peaceful purposes, as well as on the exchange of relevant scientific information between all countries. The Commission was to report on its work and make recommendations to the Security Council .8
Within the framework of the UN Atomic Energy Commission, a struggle developed between the USSR and the United States on the issue of banning atomic weapons. The Soviet Union defended the view that prohibition and destruction

5 On September 25, 1949, TASS announced that the USSR had mastered the secret of atomic weapons and had these weapons at its disposal. Reference was also made to the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR of November 6, 1947, that the secret of the atomic bomb no longer exists. At the same time, the statement stressed that the Soviet Government stands and will stand for the unconditional prohibition of the production and use of atomic weapons (Izvestia, 25. IX. 1949).

6 "Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union in 1945", Moscow, 1949, p. 164 - '166

7 "Le Monde", 4, 16.I.1946.

8 "50 years of the USSR's struggle for disarmament". Collection of Documents, Moscow, 1967, pp. 198-199.

page 87

nuclear weapons are the central issue of the atomic problem. All the rest, including the creation of a system of international control over atomic energy, is derivative and is intended to ensure the implementation of the decision on the prohibition of the use of atomic energy for military purposes .9 The US proposals, known as the "Baruch Plan", focused on" control "and" inspection " of atomic energy, but avoided the main issue of prohibiting the use of atomic energy for military purposes. 10 The "Baruch Plan" was the direct opposite of the USSR's proposals for solving the atomic problem.

The Baruch Plan was criticized by many politicians and scientists not only in socialist countries, but also in Western European countries11 . It was also criticized in France, where broad democratic circles were aware of how adventurous and dangerous nuclear saber rattling was for Western countries. The French progressive publicist M. Rouzet wrote that the goal of the "Baruch Plan ""was not to ban and destroy atomic weapons, not to restore the free exchange of scientific information, but to establish US hegemony in the control of fissile materials and their use, both industrial and military in nature"12 . A well-known French expert in the field of atomic energy, an expert of French delegations at the first sessions of the UN General Assembly, B. Goldschmidt, emphasized the threat posed by the adoption of the "Baruch Plan" for the security of the USSR: "It is clear that in the absence of mutual trust between Soviet Russia and the United States, the USSR could not accept this plan, as it would have your own safety. Indeed, the secrecy surrounding the location of industrial centers was the best defense against possible destruction by atomic weapons. The USSR was afraid of becoming an extremely easy target in the event of a conflict ... " 13 . The Baruch Plan's system of "control" over nuclear energy was denounced by a prominent French lawyer, Jean-Claude Monsieur. Klein. He pointed out that there was no guarantee that the establishment of a control system would be followed by the destruction of the US m-bomb stockpile . Some of the provisions of the Baruch Plan were questioned and criticized during the discussion of nuclear disarmament at the UN, including by a number of bourgeois States, including France .15
France's position on the issue of atomic weapons was influenced by its general political course .16 Unlike the United States and England, where the development of the nuclear industry began already during the Second World War, in France the accumulation of the corresponding scientific and technical potential occurs in the first post-war years. French scientists who have made outstanding discoveries in the field of

9 On the struggle of the USSR for the prohibition and destruction of atomic weapons in 1945-1949, see "The Soviet Union in the United Nations", Vol. I, pp. 115-171; "History of Diplomacy", vol. V. M. 1974, pp. 646-658; "History of Foreign Policy of the USSR. 1917-1975", vol. 2. Moscow, 1976, pp. 89-99.

10 For more information, see V. A. Tarasenko. Edict op.

11 P. M. S. Blackell. Military and Political Consequences of Atomic Energy. L. 1949; ejusd. Atomic Weapons and East-West Relations. Cambridge. 1956; E. Shils. The Atomic Bomb in World Politics. L. 1948; J. P. Morray. From Yalta to Disarmament. Cold War Debate. N. Y. 1961.

12 M. Ruze. Robert Oppenheimer and the Atomic Bomb, Moscow, 1963, p. 71.

13 B. Goldschmidt. L'aventure atomique, p. 68.

14 J. Klein. Op. cit., p. 43.

15 A. I. Ignatov. Edict. op. pp. 71-75; V. M. Khaytsman. The USSR and the problem of disarmament in 1945-1959, Moscow, 1970, pp. 67-68, 90-91.

16 On the foreign policy of post-war France, see: N. N. Molchanov. Foreign Policy of France, Moscow, 1959; M. M. Narinsky. England and France in Post-war Europe, Moscow, 1972; "France", Moscow, 1973; "History of France", Vol. 3, Moscow, 1973.

page 88

nuclear physicists 17 were able to resume their war-interrupted efforts in the field of nuclear power immediately after the liberation of their country from the Nazi invaders. Already in October 1945, the head of the Provisional Government of the French Republic Sh. de Gaulle signed a decree establishing the Commissariat for Atomic Energy18, which was intended to further strengthen the military and economic potential of France and restore its status as a great Power.

However, the possibilities of developing nuclear power were seriously limited by the situation of the French economy after the war. The Commissariat for Atomic Energy began its activities in conditions when the country, ravaged by the Fascist occupation, faced a number of urgent tasks to restore the national economy. France's finances were in a serious state. All this made it impossible to allocate significant resources for the development of such an expensive field of science as nuclear power. The lack of researchers and the almost complete lack of material and technical resources hindered the adoption of long-term solutions. In 1945-1949, only the foundations of the nuclear industry were laid, a cadre of scientists, engineers and technicians was formed, and raw materials were replenished .19 This was a period of limiting the relevant scientific research.

France's efforts in the field of nuclear power met with serious difficulties also because at that time it had almost no access to the scientific information of its allies, the United States and England, where the atomic research conducted during the war was concentrated. The total secrecy of the American Government precluded France from receiving either scientific information or technical assistance from abroad. During the period under review, there were practically no relations between the governments of France, on the one hand, and the United States and England, on the other, on issues related to atomic weapons. In a very difficult situation were those French scientists who, after leaving their homeland during the Nazi occupation, took part in the development of allied nuclear projects: they were strictly forbidden to transfer knowledge and experience acquired during their work in British and American laboratories .20 The prospects for the introduction and application of nuclear energy in industry were still very vague.

The activities of the Atomic Energy Commissariat in the first post-war years were strongly influenced by both the domestic political situation in France and the general international situation. Recalling this period of work of the Commissariat, the High Commissioner for Atomic Energy of France in 1945-1950, a participant in the first sessions of the UN General Assembly. Joliot-Curie wrote in 1949:: "After the liberation of the country from the German invaders, we had high hopes due to the entry of progressive elements and communists into the government. Some achievements and improvements were made in the organization of science. Maurice Thorez introduced a bill to the National Assembly on the establishment of a committee for the coordination of scientific research in the field of science and technology.-

17 From the last decade of the nineteenth century until 1940, France occupied one of the leading positions in atomic research. In 1934, Frédéric and Irene Joliot-Curie discovered the phenomenon of artificial radioactivity, and in 1939, the search for artificial radioactivity was completed. Joliot-Curie and his colleagues. Halban and L. Kovarsky contributed to the splitting of the atom and the development of the concept of a chain reaction.

18 Ordonnance N 45 - 2563 (30.Х.1945) instituant un commissariat a l'Energie atomi- que. "Journal Officiel", octobre 31, 1945, p. 7065.

19 D. Hunebelle. Une epopee de l'apres-guerre: l'epanouissement de notre indu-strie atomique. "Realites", N 155, decembre 1958, pp. 110, 112.

20 In this regard, the book B. Goldschmidt is of undoubted interest. Les rivalites atomiques 1939-1966, which describes in detail the relations of the ruling circles of the United States and England to the development of atomic energy in France in 1945-1949 (pp. 85-93); see also D. Hunebelle. Op. cit., p. 110.

page 89

research papers. But then, under American pressure, subsequent governments, obediently following the instructions of the State Department, reduced the part of the budget allocated for the development of science, while increasing loans for military purposes, starting a criminal and ruinous war in Vietnam. " 21
The Commissariat's think tank consisted of scientists with left-wing and progressive views. It was headed by one of the most prominent physicists in the world, a prominent public and political figure F. Joliot-Curie. During the war, he was chairman of the National Front, actively fought in the Resistance, joined the French Communist Party (PCF), and was elected a member of the Provisional Consultative Assembly. When the Atomic Energy Commissariat was established, it was entrusted with the function of making recommendations to the Government on international relations related to atomic energy .22
In the first post-war years, the Commissariat enjoyed great influence and authority with the Government. The American historian L. Shainman wrote about this: "The trust that the Commissariat enjoyed with the government,.. It was not limited to purely technical issues, but extended to larger political issues. " 23 With the participation of the Commissariat, the text of a statement made by the Permanent Representative of France to the Security Council, A. Parodi, on June 25, 1946, was developed, which set out the position of the French Government on the main issues of the atomic problem. The following statement of this speech drew attention to itself: "The development of atomic research in France is characterized by one main feature: they are entirely aimed at peace, at peaceful affairs, at what can bring great benefit to humanity. I am instructed to state that the goals that the French Government has set for its scientists are exclusively peaceful in nature. " 24 One of the authors of the text of this statement was F. Joliot-Curie 25 .

The peaceful aims to which France's efforts in the field of atomic energy were directed were the only reasonable course. In a declaration of 25 June 1946, the French Government approved the proposal of the USSR of 19 June 1946 to conclude an international convention on the prohibition of the production and use of weapons of mass destruction based on the use of atomic energy .26 The draft convention submitted by the Soviet Union for consideration by the UN Atomic Energy Commission provided for the prohibition of the production and storage of atomic weapons, the destruction within three months of stocks of finished and unfinished products of atomic weapons. The Soviet project was aimed at preventing an atomic arms race and promoting general disarmament. The proposals of the USSR met the fundamental interests of all the peoples of the world. However, the American ruling circles opposed the Soviet Union project on the pretext that its proposals did not purport to establish control over atomic energy. In fact, it was the USSR that made a specific proposal to create a Committee for the Prevention of the Use of Atomic Energy to the Detriment of Humanity, which was supposed to develop recommendations on the system and organization of control over atomic energy.

21 F. Joliot-Curie. Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works], Moscow, 1957, p. 514.

22 Ordonnance N 45-2563 (30. X. 1945), p. 7066.

23 L. Scheinman. Op. cit., p. 36.

24 "Nations Unies. Commission de l'energie atomique. Proces-verbaux officiels N 3. Troisieme seance. 25 juin 1946", N. Y. 1946, p. 37.

25 P. Bikar. Frédéric Joliot-Curie and Atomic Energy, Moscow, 1962, p. 94.

26 "Nations Unies. Commission de l'energie atomique. Proces-verbaux officiels N 3. Troisieme seance. 25 juin 1946", p. 39.

page 90

France's position on the atomic problem-the convention and control - was set out in a document dated July 2, 1946. It stated that "the principles of supervision and safeguards are inseparable from the convention", and supported the idea of creating an international monitoring body that should be accountable to the Security Council, which has the right to make decisions in the interests of peace and security of peoples .27 The provisions of the French document were fundamentally different from the" Baruch Plan", which provided for the creation of a control body formally within the UN, but in fact not subordinate to either the General Assembly or the Security Council.

As a follow-up to the document of July 2, 1946, the representative of France, F. Joliot-Curie, in Sub-Committee No. 1 of the UN Atomic Energy Commission, made proposals on July 5, 1946, which were aimed at developing and adopting measures to ban atomic weapons. 28 According to the French proposal, one of the first stages of implementation of control was to stop all production of atomic weapons. Since the US representative expressed his disagreement, Joliot-Curie made a compromise proposal to stop the production of atomic weapons, at least for the time being, while negotiations on the atomic issue are going on. According to Joliot-Curie, this would help calm public opinion and facilitate negotiations. However, this initiative was also rejected by the American delegation .29
French diplomacy facilitated the adoption on September 26, 1946 of the report of the Scientific and Technical Committee, which was created at the suggestion of the French delegation to consider technical and scientific problems related to atomic energy. One of the committee's conclusions was that control is technically possible and that the only obstacle to its implementation is political problems .30 It was about monitoring compliance with the treaty banning atomic weapons. The American delegation managed to get its proposals through to the UN, but the French delegate to the Security Council, A. Parodi, although he voted for them, nevertheless, as F. Joliot-Curie wrote, put forward some reservations that could have had "a certain effect" 31 .

The resistance shown by the delegation of France and a number of other bourgeois States to the American proposals concerned the question of ownership of the future international control body for sources of nuclear raw materials, nuclear materials and enterprises. The Soviet Union strongly opposed granting the international control body such a right, considering that this thesis of the "Baruch Plan" does not contribute to solving the issue of establishing control over atomic energy and is incompatible with the sovereignty of States .32 The objections of the USSR and a number of other countries forced the United States to temporarily abandon the inclusion of the property rights clause in the recommendations of the UN Atomic Energy Commission33 . The United States was forced to make some deviation from the "Baruch plan" and even agreed to include in the first report of the commission a paragraph that read:,

27 " United Nations. Atomic Energy Commission. Official report. Special add-on. First report to the Security Council. New York, 1946". New York, 1947, p. 63 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Report").

28 Pravda, 4. X. 1948.

29 "First report", p. 53.

30 Ibid., p. 10.

31 F. Joliot-Curie. Op. ed., p. 507.

32 " United Nations. Atomic Energy Commission. Official report. Second year. Special add-on. Second report to the Security Council". New York, 1947, p. 83 (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Report").

33 See A. I. Ignatov, on the position of some Western countries on the issue of property rights. Op. ed., pp. 71-72.

page 91

that "it is not necessary that mines and unearthed ore should be the property of an international control body" 34 .

The preparation of the first report of the Atomic Energy Commission to the Security Council took place in the stubborn struggle of the Soviet Union against the Anglo-American bloc. The French delegation, pursuing a policy of maneuvering and "balance", tried to find compromises acceptable to both sides under these conditions. This, in particular, concerned the issue of the right of veto in the field of the use of atomic energy. One of the main provisions of the "Baruch plan" was the requirement to eliminate the unanimity of the great Powers in decisions on the atomic problem and thereby undermine the powers of the Security Council by revising the UN Charter. In fact, the American plan was intended to deprive the USSR of the right to interfere with the nuclear dictate of the United States, which also affected the interests of other states. France , along with Canada and the Netherlands, expressed some opposition to the demands of American diplomacy both in the Atomic Energy Commission35 and in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, where its representative expressed the view that "the moment is not appropriate to raise the issue of the rule of unanimity."36 France's disagreement with the American position was recorded in a cover letter dated December 30, 1946, from the Chairman of the Commission's Working Committee to the Chairman of the UN Atomic Energy Commission .37
In a number of other cases, French diplomacy managed to find acceptable compromises, as, for example, at the 9th meeting of the commission, held on December 20, 1946, when France, together with the representative of Canada, supported the request of A. A. Gromyko to postpone for six to seven days the adoption of decisions on Baruch's proposals .38
An important step was the adoption on December 14, 1946, by the UN General Assembly of a resolution initiated by the Soviet Union on the basic principles governing the general settlement and reduction of armaments .39 This resolution was an undoubted success of the USSR in the struggle for the prohibition of atomic weapons. When it was submitted to the UN General Assembly for consideration, the Soviet Union proceeded from the assumption that arms reduction should be universal and cover not only all States, but also all types of weapons, and above all weapons of mass destruction. Speaking on December 13, 1946, at a meeting of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of France, M. Dejean, expressed gratitude to the Soviet Union for the initiative shown in this matter .40
In the light of the UN resolution adopted on December 14, 1946, the conclusion of a convention on the prohibition of atomic weapons became even more urgent. The USSR in its statements on December 30, 1946 to the UN Atomic Energy Commission 41 and on February 14, 1947 at a meeting of the Council of Europe

34 "First report", p. 16.

35 "Nations Unies. Commission de l'energie atomique. Proces-verbaux officiels N 1 - 10, 9-e seance, 20 decembre 1946, p. 131, 10-e seance, 30 dercembre. 1946". N. Y. 1947, p. 155.

36 " United Nations. Official Records of the second part of the first session of the General Assembly. First Committee. Political and security issues. Summary records of meetings November 2-December 13, 1946, New York." Belgium. 1958, p. 85 (hereinafter - " The First Committee. Summary records of the meeting of November 2-December 13, 1946").

37 See "First Report", page 6.

38 " United Nations. Atomic Energy Commission. Official Report No. 9. Ninth Session, December 20, 1946. " New York, 1948, p. 77.

39 " United Nations. Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly at the second part of the first session, from 23 October to 15 December 1946. " New York, 1947, pp. 62-63.

40 " First Committee. Summary records of the meetings of November 2-December 13, 1946", p. 141.

41 " United Nations. Atomic Energy Commission. Official Report No. 10. Tenth Session, December 30, 1946. " USA. 1947, pp. 83-85.

page 92

Security Council resolution 42 reiterated the need for an urgent solution to the issue of the prohibition of atomic weapons and the conclusion of an appropriate convention to that end. These proposals found a warm response in wide circles of the world community, which also influenced the position of France. "We have always believed," the French representative said at a meeting of the Security Council on March 10, 1947, that the Soviet proposal to conclude a convention outlawing atomic weapons was justified and necessary, and that it should form part of the system we are trying to create. " 43
Until May 1947, France's approach to the atomic problem at the UN contained a number of positive elements, although it mostly coincided with the American point of view. There were isolated cases when France voted jointly with the USSR and Poland .44 France's position at the United Nations on the atomic problem reflected the policy of the Fourth Republic, which at the beginning of the post-war period set itself the goal of using atomic energy for peaceful purposes. However, the official line of the French government did not always correspond to the position of the Atomic Energy Commissariat.

Subsequent changes in France's domestic political life - the removal of Communist ministers from the government of Paul Ramadier in May 1947, the reorientation of France's foreign policy towards a military alliance with the United States, which ended with its entry into the North Atlantic Pact, France's rejection of collective security within the UN and cooperation with the USSR in strengthening European security-all this could not do not affect the policy of the Fourth Republic in the field of atomic energy, as well as the position of France on the atomic problem in the UN. From the end of 1947, the French ruling circles began to prepare the conditions for the implementation of the policy that later led to the atomic weapons tests at Reggane .45 By setting out to build its own nuclear capability, France tried to use it as one of the means to strengthen its colonial system, the foundations of which were undermined by the national liberation movement that was booming in Asia and Africa.

The years 1947-1949 are characterized by the offensive of forces of internal and external reaction against the French Atomic Energy Commissariat, where key positions were held by scientists who adhered to left-wing beliefs, including communists and former members of the Resistance movement. In order to change the direction of the committee's activities, the French Government appointed supporters of the use of atomic energy for military purposes (R. Lescope, I. Rocard) to senior positions in it. Under pressure from Washington, members of the right - wing parties in both chambers of the French Parliament - the National Assembly and the Council of the Republic-launched a dirty campaign aimed at removing F. Joliot-Curie from the post of High Commissioner for Atomic Energy .46 Indicative in this respect was the attempt of A. Monnet, a member of the Gaullist "Union of the French People" (RPF), together with the group of the union of left Republicans, to reduce the budget of the Commissariat for Atomic Energy by 1 million francs during its discussion in the Council of the Republic in March 194847 .

42 " United Nations. The Security Council. Official report. Second year. N 14". New York, 1947, pp. 158-159.

43 " United Nations. The Security Council. Official report. Second year. N 24. New York, 1947". France. 1951, p. 39.

44 " First Committee. Summary records of the meetings of November 2-December 13, 1946", p. 141.

45 Territory in the Sahara, where the first French atomic bomb was tested in February 1960.

46 "Annales de l'Assemblee Nationale. Debats. Session de 1948". P. 1949, p. 1993; "Annales du Conseil de la Republique. Debats. Session de 1948". P. 1949, pp. 808 - 810.

47 "Annales du Conseil de la Republique. Debats. Session de 1948", p. 807.

page 93

The right-wing offensive was accompanied by a broad anti-communist campaign in the Western bourgeois press, which fiercely opposed the idea of F. Joliot - Curie, a member of the PKD and a passionate peace fighter, as the head of French atomic research. The Journal de Geneve newspaper wrote:: "Americans are concerned about the fact that the leadership of atomic research in France is being carried out by a communist." 48 But there were other factors that influenced the attitude of the French government to the issue of banning atomic weapons. Thanks to the discovery of uranium ore deposits in France, it has become one of the leading producers of nuclear raw materials in Western Europe. Having provided itself with this raw material, which was a necessary condition for the independent development of the nuclear industry, France simultaneously achieved a certain technical progress: in December 1948, the first French nuclear reactor was put into operation. The foundations of the industrial and technical base of nuclear power were laid.

The removal of the Communists from the French government marked the beginning of a new stage in France's nuclear policy, which decided to create its own nuclear weapons. This could not but affect its approach to solving the nuclear problem at the UN. France now began to share and support the position of the United States and its Western partners, who opposed the prohibition of atomic weapons and their removal from the arsenal of national weapons. It joined the American bloc in discussing the Soviet proposals of June 11, 1947, in Committee No. 2 of the Atomic Energy Commission49, which were aimed at bringing together the positions of the parties on the issue of international control over atomic energy.

The Soviet delegation to the UN consistently defended the point of view that the interests of establishing international control over atomic energy do not require granting the international control body ownership rights to nuclear raw materials, nuclear materials and related enterprises. In the preparation of the second report to the Security Council (autumn 1947), France no longer objected to the inclusion of a provision on property rights in the report of the Atomic Energy Commission. "We believe - said the French representative of F. de Rose when discussing the draft of the second report, - that introduction... Such a concept of property rights, as defined in the introduction to the second part of the report, should be considered as a product or resultant precautionary measure deemed necessary to ensure security... Don't we also have to admit that ...that ownership is a convenient or even necessary legal and administrative link that enables the international monitoring body to perform the functions that will be assigned to it?"50 . Solidarity with the United States and Britain was also reflected in the report and resolution (France was one of their authors), which stated that the Soviet proposals of June 11, 1947, allegedly did not create a sufficient basis for a system of effective international control over atomic energy .51 Demanding the adoption of the "Baruch Plan", France

48 "Journal de Geneve", 12. I. 1949; See also "Time", 27. XII. 1948, p. 19; "The New York Herald Tribune", 18.1, 3.11, 1949. F. Joliot-Curie was prematurely removed from the post of High Commissioner for Atomic Energy of France in at the beginning of 1950 (P. Bikar. Op. ed., p. 104).

49 "Second report", pp. 142-143.

50 " United Nations. Atomic Energy Commission. Official report. Second year. N 3. 13th meeting on September 10, 1947". Nyo-Yark. 1948, p. 29.

51 " United Nations. Atomic Energy Commission. Official report. Third year. Special add-on. Third report to the Security Council. May 17, 1948. " New York, 1948, p. 5.

page 94

together with the Anglo-Saxon countries, in fact, it questioned the value of the principle of national sovereignty in a situation where nuclear weapons exist. Thus, at a meeting of the First Committee in October 1948, the French representative stated:"We are faced with the following alternative: either death by the atomic bomb or renunciation of sovereignty." 52
In order to bring the positions of the powers that discussed this problem closer, the USSR submitted new proposals at the third session of the UN General Assembly in October 1948, which provided for the simultaneous signing and entry into force of both the convention on the Prohibition of atomic Weapons and the Convention on the establishment of international control over atomic energy .53 This initiative was further evidence of the peaceful foreign policy of the Soviet Union and was aimed at urgently solving the most urgent problem of our time. The French press noted the progressive nature of the new Soviet proposals. Even the right-wing government newspaper Combat had to admit that they were "a serious step forward in the discussion of the issue of nuclear energy control"54 . The organ of the French Socialist Party, Le Populaire, also noted the obvious progress in solving this problem .55
However, during this period, the French delegation supported the American line at the UN aimed at disrupting the compromise solution, although it took a restrained position. Unlike the United States, which sought to terminate the activities of the UN Atomic Energy Commission, France abstained from voting on the draft resolution, which provided for the continuation of the commission's work .56 French diplomacy maneuvered to hide the true goals of its policy on the nuclear issue from the broad circles of the French and world public. The French delegation to the United Nations did not openly oppose the ban on atomic weapons, as broad circles of French workers demanded support for Soviet proposals aimed at strengthening peace and security. 57
The French Communist Party played a leading role in the struggle of the French people for the prohibition of nuclear weapons, the reduction of armaments, and peace and cooperation among peoples. Its position on the issue of the prohibition of atomic weapons in the framework of the UN was set out in the report of the Secretary General of the PCF M. Thorez at its XI Congress, held on June 25-28, 1947 in Strasbourg. It said: "It is our fervent wish that an agreement will be reached at the United Nations on the Soviet proposal for progressive disarmament and the prohibition of atomic weapons. This, in our opinion, should be the main direction of French foreign policy, which will correspond both to the interests of France and to the interests of democracy and peace. " 58
The proposals made by the USSR on September 25, 1948, at the third session of the General Assembly, were warmly supported by the French people and the PCF.-

52 "Documents officiels de la 3-e session de l'Assemblee Generale, premiere partie. Questions politiques et de securite у compris la reglementation des armements". P. 1949, p. 49.

53 "Foreign policy of the Soviet Union in 1948". Documents and materials. Part II. Moscow, 1951, p. 332.

54 "Combat", 4.X. 1948.

55 "Le Populaire", 4.X.1948.

56 " United Nations Official Records of the first part of the third session of the General Assembly. First Committee. Annexes to the summary records of meetings". Document A / C. 1/311. Paris. 1948, p. 4, 14.

57 Pravda, 10. X. 1948.

53 M. Torez. Selected Works, vol. 2 (1945-1958), Moscow, 1959, p. 91.

page 95

United Nations General Assembly in Paris, on the prohibition of atomic weapons and the reduction by one third of conventional weapons of the five Great Powers 59 . On September 30, 1948, the Politburo of the PCF adopted a statement thanking the Soviet delegation for its proposals. The text of the statement was sent to representatives of the foreign press who attended the third session of the UN General Assembly .60 At numerous rallies and meetings held throughout the country, French workers adopted decisions containing approval of the Soviet proposals and demanding their adoption, and drew up petitions and appeals to the UN. Such broad support was possible thanks to the great propaganda work of the PCF, which explained the importance of the new Soviet initiative for ensuring peace, for easing the burden borne by the peoples due to the arms race and the increase in military spending. The debate in the French National Assembly shows the urgency with which the issue of war credits was raised at that time .61 The Finance Commission did not approve the report on war loans for 1948: Communist deputies voted against it, while representatives of the SFIO and MCI abstained. In assessing this debate, the yearbook L'annee politique noted that discussions concerning war loans posed a real threat to the Government .62
The struggle for the prohibition of atomic weapons became even more widespread in France, as in the rest of the world, in 1949, when the World Peace Movement was formed .63 Under the influence of this struggle, in December 1949 the French National Assembly called on the Government to submit to the United Nations a draft international convention that would make the use of the atomic bomb a crime against humanity. The appeal was signed by deputies from various political parties and parliamentary groups-V. de Moreau Giafferi (radical socialist), A. Forcinal (YDSR), Canon F. Cyrus (Independent Republican), S. d'Aragon (MPP), E. d'Astier de la Vigerie (Union of Progressive Republicans) 64 .

After the third session of the UN General Assembly, negotiations on the problems of atomic energy caused by the Western Powers were reduced to discussions on third-rate issues of a procedural nature .65 On July 29, 1949, the last meeting of the UN Atomic Energy Commission was held, at which a resolution was adopted on the termination of its activities .66 During the subsequent consultative meetings of the permanent members of the UN Atomic Energy Commission, France joined the United States and Britain. Representatives of the Western powers continued to impose the "Baruch Plan"on the Soviet Union67 . Only the elimination of the American nuclear monopoly forced many countries to reconsider their positions and start searching for a new approach to solving the nuclear problem. This was already evident at the fourth session of the UN General Assembly .68 However, France still continued to

59 " The United Nations. Plenary sessions of the General Assembly. Summary records of the meetings of September 21-December 12, 1948, Paris." USSR, 1964, p. 66.

60 "L'Humanite", 1.X.1948.

61 "Annales de l'Assemblee Nationale. Debats. Session de 1948", pp. 4150 - 4264; "Session de 1949". P. 1950, pp. 3225 - 3246.

62 "L'Annee politique 1948". P. 1949, p. 104.

63 F. Joliot-Curie. Five Years of Struggle for Peace, Moscow, 1955.

64 "Le Monde", 7.XII.1949.

66 "The Soviet Union in the United Nations", vol. 1, p. 166.

66 " United Nations. International control of atomic energy. The General Assembly. Official records: fourth session. Supplement No. 15. New York, 1949." New York. 1950, p. 2.

67 "The Soviet Union's struggle for Disarmament in 1946-1960", Moscow, 1961, p. 145.

68 A. I. Ignatov. Op. ed., pp. 109-110.

page 96

perform at the UN in a bloc with the United States and England. The French-Canadian draft resolution adopted at the fourth session of the General Assembly provided for limiting the consideration of the atomic problem to consultative meetings of the USSR, the United States, Britain, France, Canada and Kuomintang China.

Let's sum up the results. In the first post-war years, the nuclear problem did not receive a positive solution. As already mentioned above, during the period from 1946 to May 1947, when France was implementing the policy of a bloc of three ruling political parties, former members of the Resistance - the PCF, SFIO and MCI, French representatives held positions in the Atomic Energy Commission, the Security Council, the General Assembly and other UN bodies on the issue of banning atomic weapons. He adopted a more realistic position, often approaching the position of the USSR. However, after the removal of Communist ministers from the French government, France's foreign policy is gradually changing, which could not but affect its position on the atomic problem in the UN. It took a lot of time and effort before there was some convergence of views on certain aspects of it. This was primarily due to the consistent and persistent efforts of the Soviet Union, which relied on the support of the progressive forces of various countries, including the broad democratic circles of France. An analysis of the initial difficulties on this path allows us to reveal even more fully the significance of some significant events of recent times. One of them was the signing of the Agreement between the USSR and France in Moscow on July 16, 1976 on the Prevention of Accidental or Unauthorized Use of Nuclear Weapons , 69 the importance of which for international detente and cooperation was emphasized by the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Leonid Brezhnev , in an interview with French television on October 5, 1976,70 as well as in the communique delegations of the Foreign Affairs Commissions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR 71 . The importance of this Agreement, as it fully corresponds to the spirit and letter of the Final Act adopted in Helsinki, was also noted in the speech of Leonid Brezhnev at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on October 25, 1976,72

69 Pravda, 17. VII. 1976.

70 Pravda, 6. X. 1976.

71 Pravda, 14. XII. 1976.

72 Pravda, 26. X. 1976.

page 97

Permanent link to this publication: