500.CC(PC)/12–1545: Telegram
The Acting United States Representative on the Preparatory Commission (Stevenson) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received December 16—4:20 a.m.]
13194. Copre 584. Reference Copre 583.55 At the start of Saturday’s meeting of Committee 8, a proposal to vote by secret ballot was defeated on a roll call vote, 26 to 24. I voted against a secret ballot and later made the following statement on my vote.
“At the outset of our meetings a couple of weeks ago, I explained the position of the US on the question of the location of the permanent headquarters. I said that I would abstain from voting on the location but I also said that I would not abstain on matters of procedure. I voted against the secret ballot not on legal grounds and not, I can [Page 1489] assure you, to serve any ulterior motive, but because the US delegation believes that secrecy is a bad precedent for the United Nations; because we feel that our decisions in so far as possible should in all cases and on all issues now and hereafter be made not secretly but openly. As Mr. Noel-Baker said the other day, we have spoken frankly on this issue. We feel that we should vote openly and frankly in the same spirit. I am happy that in its infancy the United Nations has not adopted the methods of secrecy.”
Agreement had been reached during the day between both sides on a procedure by which there would have been a ballot either open or secret in which each member would name the country of his choice for the permanent headquarters, either the US or some European country. The European country which received the greatest number of votes would then have been proposed as an amendment to Recommendation No. 1 and voted on. Then the recommendation itself would have been brought to a vote. Agreement had not been reached, however, on whether these votes should be by secret or open ballot. After the Committee voted down the secret ballot, New Zealand, supported by the UK, Canada and others, opposed proceeding further along the lines that had been agreed upon on the grounds that secrecy had been an integral part of this procedure. A move for adjournment was also opposed.
Wilgress of Canada made and then withdrew a motion to reconsider the Canadian voting proposal and moved an immediate vote on Recommendation No. 1. Hoo of China called for a vote first on amendment to the recommendation substituting Europe for the US since the substance of such an amendment had been advocated by most of those opposing the recommendation. The chairman pointed out that no amendment for Europe had been offered in spite of his repeated requests for such an amendment. Noel-Baker supported Wilgress and denied that the UK had indulged in delaying tactics, or had any ulterior motives.
Manuilsky of the Ukraine declared a most painful impression was being created by the attempt of those in favor of Europe to avoid the regular procedure which should have been to embody their convictions in an amendment for Europe which would then be put to a vote. If the amendment were defeated the Committee would then vote on the recommendation itself. That was the orderly and regular way to proceed.
Gromyko supported Manuilsky and suggested that, since the supporters of Europe refused to offer an amendment, the chairman or some other delegate who had not yet committed himself in the debate should offer it. The chairman then declared that Uruguay would move an amendment in favor of Europe. Pelt of the Netherlands [Page 1490] protested against the proposal of such an amendment by the chair and denounced the proceedings as undignified.
Padilla Nervo of Mexico supported the chairman forcefully and declared the whole difficulty arose because the countries supporting Europe refused to follow the standard procedure followed in all the committees of PreCo and in all international conferences. They said their refusal was because they did not want to embarrass the US by voting for Europe. If the US were to be embarrassed he said, that would have resulted from the debate in which everyone expressed his sentiments freely and frankly and not from the act of voting in accordance with these sentiments. He declared the chairman had done the honorable thing in proposing an amendment which the states in favor of Europe should have done for themselves.
Colombia then seconded the chairman’s motion and declared that it would vote for Europe. Iran declared it would vote for Europe on the first ballot but would reserve its position if the amendment for Europe did not carry. The chairman said Uruguay took the same position. Poland also declared itself in this sense.
The amendment to substitute Europe for the US was then put to a roll call vote. The following voted “yes”: Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Union of South Africa, UK and Uruguay. The following voted “no”: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelo-Russia, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Soviet Union, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. The following abstained: Ecuador and US. The amendment was defeated 25 to 23 with two abstentions.
Recommendation No. 1 was then put to a vote. The following voted “yes”: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelo-Russia, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Soviet Union, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. The following voted “no”: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Union of South Africa and the UK. The following abstained: Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, New Zealand, Syria and the US. The recommendation was adopted 30 to 14 with 6 abstentions.
Wilgress of Canada then moved that the vote be made unanimous. Noel-Baker seconded the motion, pledging the UK to work loyally [Page 1491] and closely with its great friend and ally, the US, and to do everything in its power to make the United Nations successful. There was prolonged applause and the chairman declared the motion carried by acclamation.
I then made a statement on behalf of the US which was also greeted with prolonged applause. It was an historic moment and in some ways a bitter one for the countries of Europe for by this action the United Nations definitely and finally recognized that the center of international actions after being for centuries in Europe, had moved to the west. I think that explains the embarrassing persistence of the UK and its European supporters in refusing to agree to the regular course of procedure on this whole question right to the bitter end. Once the final vote had been taken however the atmosphere changed and the meeting broke up in a general spirit of goodwill.
Zuleta is anxious that the Dept of State should understand that Colombia was in favor of the US and voted for Europe on the first ballot only because that was made necessary by the refusal of the British and their supporters to propose an amendment in this sense. I may say that Zuleta has been a leader among the Latin American delegates in opposing attempts to delay and confuse the issue throughout the proceedings of Committee 8.
[Here follows text of Mr. Stevenson’s remarks. For a summary of this statement, see Committee 8: General Questions, Summary Record of Meetings, page 51.]
- Telegram 13193, December 15, from London, not printed.↩