501.BC/4–1246
Memorandum by the Associate Chief of the Division of International Security Affairs (Bancroft) to the Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (Hiss)
Joe Johnson reported on the telephone this morning that the Committee of Experts, through the use of subcommittees, expects to complete its consideration of the Rules relating to the conduct of business this week. Meetings have been held regularly twice a day by the Committee and two meetings are scheduled for today.7
Accordingly, there is every likelihood that early next week the Committee will commence and perhaps complete its consideration of the Rules relating to the determination of a dispute v. situation and relating to the determination of who must abstain from voting under Article 27, 3.
Although Joe Johnson has done all he can to retard the Committee’s [Page 261] excessive haste, he has not been able to control it.8 I suggested to him that in such circumstances he should make every effort to obtain agreement among the Committee members to the United States desiderata on the question of abstention from voting by parties to a dispute; and that we were hoping to clear a statement of such desiderata with Mr. Hiss and Mr. Cohen today. In the meantime, the memoranda prepared by Mr. Cohen and Mr. Hiss on the question could serve as a basis for his arguments.
The members of the Committee who are the proponents of excessive speed are the Soviet and French representatives. The basis of their position is that their experts on procedure will not be in New York long and they want to get the job completed before they go.
It might now be appropriate for Mr. Stettinius to have an informal conversation with Mr. Gromyko9 and M. Bonnet10 with a view to slowing down the processes of the Committee. He could very appropriately point out that the work of the Committee of Experts should be continuing in nature, and that to adopt Rules on such important subjects as are now before the Committee without adequate consideration would serve in the long run to retard rather than to expedite the work of the Security Council.11
- The first phase of the work of the Committee of Experts in New York ended on April 5 when the Committee submitted to the Security Council a report recommending the adoption of 23 rules of procedure regarding meetings, agenda, representation, and credentials, and secretariat. Intended to replace or supplement rules 1–15 of the provisional rules of the Security Council drawn up by the Preparatory Commission and adopted by the Council during January–February, the report also proposed the adoption of a supplementary rule regarding communications from nongovernmental sources. The Security Council on April 9 adopted the new rules, with minor amendments; these were incorporated into United Nations document S/35 (see SC, 1st yr., 1st series, Suppl. No. 2, pp. 15 ff., annex 1c). Rule 30 of the February rules (voting) became Rule 27 in the April 9 rules.↩
- A comprehensive program for the work of the Committee of Experts as regards rules of procedure was outlined in a memorandum of April 3 drafted by the Associate Chief of the Division of International Security Affairs (Bancroft); by April 9 it had been approved within the Department and was ready for transmission to the Permanent Delegation (501.BC/4–946).↩
- A. A. Gromyko, Soviet Representative on the Security Council.↩
- Henri Bonnet, French Representative on the Security Council.↩
- No record of such an approach by Mr. Stettinius has been found in the Department’s files.↩