501.BB/11–246
The Counselor of the Department (Cohen) to Senator Austin
My Dear Senator Austin: I enclose a revised copy of the memorandum entitled “U.S. Position on General Assembly Agenda Items Relating to Voting in the Security Council.”85 You will recall that an earlier draft was discussed in the meeting in Washington on the evening of October 18.86 I also enclose a paper entitled “United States Proposals for Rules of Procedure of the Security Council”,87 which contains three proposed rules together with brief comments thereon. These are revisions of three of the rules contained in the document “Technical Aspects of Proposals for Liberalized Interpretation of Four Power Statement and Article 27 (SD/S/668B),”88 a copy of [Page 318] which was included among the background material for the position paper on the “veto.” You will note that the other rules and alternatives in that document have been omitted.
It is our judgment that the best way to achieve success in obtaining agreement on these draft rules, which we believe will accomplish the ends set forth in the position paper and in your speech, is to discuss them at an early date with the representatives of the other four permanent members of the Security Council, and as soon as practicable thereafter to have them considered by the Committee of Experts of the Council.
The Department believes that the best way to approach the other four permanent members would be for you personally to hand copies of the two documents directly to each of the Chiefs of the Assembly Delegations from those countries, stating that you wish to take advantage of their presence for an exchange of views on this most important question. You will wish, I believe, to explain the two memoranda briefly, emphasizing our view that the establishment of satisfactory procedures for the Security Council is the responsibility of the Council itself. You will probably wish also to indicate that you will be glad to hold further consultations with them after they have had an opportunity to study the two documents, and perhaps to suggest conversations on the technical level as well. The four Chiefs of Delegations should be also informed of our desire to have the Committee of Experts of the Security Council consider these proposals at an early date, preferably within the next week or so. In this connection it should be noted that drafts of rules designed to achieve the same ends as Rules B and C of the second paper were handed informally last spring to the representatives on that Committee of the other permanent members, but were never discussed in the Committee or shown to its other members.
It is not impossible that during the consultations others will make an attempt to explore more fully the question of eliminating the “veto” with respect to atomic energy. Should this occur, I believe the United States position should be that the question is irrelevant until such time as the Atomic Energy Commission makes specific proposals. We are presently concerned solely with the procedures of the Security Council within the framework of the Yalta formula.
I enclose a copy of a letter I am sending today to Mr. Herschel Johnson, suggesting that after consultation with you, he arrange with Sir Alexander Cadogan, the President of the Security Council, to have [Page 319] the Committee of Experts meet for the purpose of considering these proposals.
Sincerely yours,