501.BC/6–1446: Telegram
The Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 9:10 p.m.]
316. For Hiss. Following receipt of urtel No. 92, June 12, and of telephoned report of discussion on June 13 in Mr. Cohen’s office concerning that part of mytel 308, June 12, relating to definition of dispute, J. E. Johnson yesterday requested appointment with Lawford (U.K.). He read Lawford your 92 except for last two sentences and then added that, since receiving report of the conversation of June 11 (mytel 308), US Government had taken an even stronger position regarding the definition of a dispute. Johnson stated that, in view of the US Government there is nothing in the Charter which makes a rule defining a dispute necessary, or desirable. Moreover, his government had informed him that it is quite firmly opposed to the UK proposal for a definition of a dispute, because (1) it does not agree with the text, and (2) it wishes to avoid discussing this question unless there is complete discussion of entire voting question.
At Lawford’s request the US views were later given to him in an informal memorandum.
Lawford, who fully understands our position and is obviously unhappy about both the text of the proposal and the Foreign Office’s insistence of introducing it now, intends to tell F.O. at once of US view. He also read Johnson a draft of a letter to F.O. in which he raised some of the points mentioned in mytel 308 (for more complete report of June 11 talk, see memorandum of conversation given Bancroft46). The letter also emphasized the inadvisability of introducing a proposal without advance US concurrence: Lawford wrote in this connection that, on the basis of previous experience, he felt that the proposal would have little chance of adoption by Committee of Experts in absence of UK-US agreement on it.
[Page 281]Following a brief discussion, Lawford, feeling F.O. would not alter its position on his recommendation alone, wondered whether matter might not be referred to Paris for discussion between Jebb47 and Cohen. I believe this suggestion, which Lawford intends to pass on to Cadogan, merits serious consideration and would appreciate your views.48
- Not found in Department files.↩
- H. M. G. Jebb, Counsellor, British Foreign Office, principally engaged in United Nations affairs at this time.↩
- In telegram 324, June 17, 8:10 p.m., Minister Johnson stated: “Lawford informed member US delegation today … that Cadogan has requested Foreign Office to ask Jebb to take up question of definition of a dispute with Cohen in Paris.” Mr. Johnson suggested also that Mr. Cohen be informed of the substance of the conversations in New York. (501.BC/6–1746)↩