500.CC/6–345: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union ( Harriman ) to the Acting Secretary of State
Moscow
, June 3,
1945—noon.
[Received June 3—10:18 a.m.]
[Received June 3—10:18 a.m.]
1882. Before taking up the subject of your 1203, June 2, 6 p.m., it is vital that we should fully understand the exact significance of Gromyko’s statement and its relation to the agreement on voting procedure at Yalta.
- 1.
- Does his statement mean that the Soviet Govt is now demanding that there must be an affirmative formal decision of the Council involving the full right of veto by all five permanent members before any [Page 1120] situation can be brought up for discussion in the Council, which in effect would vitiate the Yalta decision on voting procedure since any situation or dispute would never reach that stage if one of the permanent members wished to prevent it, or does Gromyko recognize that if one of the permanent members is involved in the situation it would abstain from voting in the initial decision?
- 2.
- Am I right in my understanding that our position is that a free discussion of a situation in the Council should be permitted prior to any formal vote as to whether the Council should investigate such a situation?
- 3.
- Was there any formal or informal discussion of this aspect at Dumbarton Oaks?
- 4.
- Can you fortify us with any arguments for use in our discussion here which would indicate that Gromyko’s position is at variance with the intent of the Yalta decision?
Harriman