501.BC/4–2646: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Stettinius)
37. For Johnson from Hiss. This relates to Rule A of S/Procedure/51/Rev. 1 (reurtel No. 113 of April 26).
Inasmuch as Rule A does make it mandatory on the President after a vote is taken to state whether the question voted on has been carried, we believe that it would be a mistake for the Committee of Experts to adopt Rule A as it now stands without having considered the question of the voluntary abstention of a permanent member.
It seems to us that this is one of the cases where it is preferable for the Council to have no rule of procedure than to have one on which unanimous agreement has not been reached. Furthermore, in view of the fact that our proposed Rule B has been shown only to the representatives of the permanent members and not to the representatives of the other members of the Council, it would be helpful to have the views of those governments. We see no reason why the Committee of Experts [Page 273] should reach a decision on this question in great haste and would prefer to have it discussed at some length and over a period of time.
Stein’s opposition to the rule appears to be not against its practical operation but against the existence of the rule itself. His admission that a permanent member cannot be forced to vote against its wishes appears to us to indicate that he would not necessarily attack the validity of a resolution of the Council on a substantive matter which was adopted by the necessary majority except for a permanent member who voluntarily abstained. This seems further to indicate that there is no necessity for having a rule on this subject at the present time.
As far as his arguments against the rule are concerned, we are willing to admit that the permanent members have a special obligation to vote on questions coming before the Council but this does not mean that the Charter itself demands that they must vote on every issue where they are willing to accept a decision of the Council without affirmatively voting for it.
We are not particularly impressed with his second argument that there might be practical difficulties in obtaining the necessary majority if permanent members are permitted to abstain. The same reasoning would apply to the abstention of non-permanent members which under the Charter and according to past practices of the Council is clearly permissible.
Accordingly, you should urge the Committee not to adopt Rule A in its present form. [Hiss.]