Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

IO Files: US/A/C.1/58

Minutes of Meeting of Political Advisers and Executive Officers

secret

[New York,] November 9, 1946.

Developments in Connection With United States Position on General Assembly Agenda Items Dealing With the Veto

Mr. Johnson⁴ stated that the United States position was still not definitely determined in connection with this subject. Two papers had been circulated;⁵ one stating in summary the United States position (US/A/C.1/20 Rev.a) and the other listing proposals for additional rules of procedure (US/A/C.1/18 Rev.a).⁶ Mr. Johnson stated that that part of the position contained in points 1–5 (excluding the subparagraphs of 5) and 7 of the former paper⁷ was firm. However, it was uncertain whether the three proposals for interpretation of Article 27⁸ would be submitted to the Assembly. It was also uncertain what disposition would be made of the texts of the three specific rules.⁹

Furthermore, as regards paragraph 6 of the first paper,¹⁰ the weight of sentiment in the delegation favored the view that the detailed discussion of voting in the Security Council should take place in the Council. This view was based first upon the necessity that the Security Council write its own rules of procedure; and secondly, upon the realization that very little would be gained through rushing into matters quickly. The United States tactics should be directed toward securing agreement leading to effective Security Council action. An Assembly resolution of such a character that the U.S.S.R. was forced to vote against it would scarcely be helpful in accomplishing this objective.

Whether the text of the specific rules would be given publicity even when they were submitted to the Security Council, has, Mr. Johnson stated, not yet been determined. If their submission was delayed until the matter was referred to the Committee of Experts it might be possible to keep the texts restricted.

Mr. Johnson stressed that the two papers referred to above represent the Department’s position. The general issues involved in all the specific proposals have at one time or another been discussed in the Committee of Experts, and drafts containing the substance of rules B and C were handed to the representatives of the other permanent members on the Committee of Experts last summer but were not placed before the Committee.¹¹ Mr. Johnson stated that all the representatives of permanent members excepting the U.S.S.R. had been sympathetic with the objective of the second proposal and that all of the permanent members were sympathetic with the objective of the third excepting that the U.S.S.R. did not wish a rule. Mr. Johnson pointed out that in one of the decisions under the Spanish case which the U.S.S.R. claimed to be non-procedural, the U.S.S.R. itself had abstained from voting. Also in the Syria-Lebanon case, both the United Kingdom and France had abstained from voting.

Mr. Johnson reviewed Rule A briefly and indicated that a large part of that Rule might be non-controversial. This of course would not be the case with paragraph 12 which, however, was taken literally from paragraph 1 of Part I of the Four Power Statement. Mr. Johnson stated that one of the dangers in connection with Rule A which must be guarded against would be that the U.S.S.R. might, in connection with such a rule, attempt to write paragraph 2 of Part II of the Four Power Statement into the rules of procedure and thus in effect nullify for the future the provision that rules of procedure should be adopted by procedural vote.

Rule B, it was pointed out by Mr. Johnson, was the most important and vital United States proposal and likewise the one that would be most difficult to put across.

Bernhard Bechhoefer

4. Presumably Joseph E. Johnson.
5. That is, internally, within the United States Delegation.
6. See footnote 3, p. 331.
7. The same as in the original paper, document US/A/C.1/20, November 4, p. 320.
8. See the sub-paragraphs of point 5, document US/A/C.1/20, November 4, p. 321.
9. That is, Rules “A”, “B” and “C” of document US/A/C.1/18, November 4, p. 322.
10. See footnote 92, p. 321.
11. That is, the rules enumerated in telegram 18, to New York, April 13, p. 262, except note: Rule B of document US/A/C.1/18 (under reference here) corresponds to Rule C in telegram 18 and likewise Rule C to Rule B.