IO Files:US/A/M (Chr)/19
Minutes of the Nineteenth Meeting of the United States Delegation, New York, Hotel Pennsylvania, November 13, 1946, 9 a. m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (33) present.]
Voting in the Security Council
Senator Connally pointed out that the debate on the veto was going to start on the following day, and he asked the Delegation’s opinion [Page 338] on whether the U.S. should state its position early in the debate or let the situation develop. Also he wanted guidance on what line should be taken. He said that the position paper US/A/C.1/4313 was on the whole satisfactory to him although there were some points that were not as clearly set forth as they might be.
Senator Austin said that he thought there was no confusion in the Delegation on its position. Senator Connally replied that he thought there was some confusion within the Delegation although he agreed with the position put forth in general. The thing which he did not agree with was the recommendation in paragraph 10 of the position paper that there should be a postponement in making known the U.S. position and he saw no reason for this delay and thought that a position could be taken now as well as later, especially since there was no violent change advocated.
Senator Connally continued that he would like to be able to say in his statement that the Four-Power statement at San Francisco was wrong when it stated that there must be a unanimous vote of the permanent Members to decide whether a question was substantive or procedural. He recalled that the statement had gone too far in order to get votes at that time and had been put forward at a moment of considerable pressure.
Mr. Dulles agreed that the Four-Power statement had been put forward very hastily at a time when the Delegation was engrossed in what it thought were larger problems. The theory put forward had been that of Mr. Pasvolsky and he thought that the Delegation had never given the matter much thought. Senator Connally reiterated that he thought the statement was wrong and that the Security Council should be asked to reconsider it. Mr. Dulles agreed that it was most important that the Four-Power statement should be corrected.
Senator Connally said that the Four-Power Statement made the veto apply to all questions. Anything could be vetoed when a substantive vote was applied to the decision as to whether or not a matter was procedural. Senator Austin commented that he thought if the matter were reconsidered that the Delegation should shoot high.
Mr. J. Johnson agreed. He pointed out that the Department’s position was that no state should be a judge in its own case except in enforcement matters. He thought that the Charter should be consistent with the abstention clause in the Yalta formula regarding Chapter VI. [Page 339] He pointed out that the Charter in Article 27 says “shall” but this nicety of phraseology had been completely ignored by the Soviets who claimed that they could decide whether a matter was procedural or substantive. This, he said, was an intolerable situation.
Mr. Johnson thought that it was essentially a tactical matter how to handle the Soviets. The question was whether we were more or less likely to obtain agreement on procedural matters than last Spring when the attempt was made or at the time of the Four-Power statement.
Mr. Dulles said that as he recalled the Four-Power Statement it was an attempt to express the then present situation and it was not regarded as a perpetual definition. He had criticized the statement in that respect. The attitude of the Delegation at that time was that there should be as much dilution of the veto as possible in practice. Certainly, the statement had not been looked upon as being immutable. The U.S. Delegation had been forced into making it by the practical situation at the time.
Senator Connally pointed out that the Four-Power Statement had never been agreed to by the whole organization and was not binding upon it.
Senator Austin said that he thought that the United States position as outlined in the position paper US/A/C.1/43 was a fine position up to recommendation 10 which stated:
“The United States believes that the consideration of the General Assembly of the question of voting in the Security Council should be directed toward focusing the issue on the general objectives set forth above, and the discussion of the specific proposals for clarification of the procedures and practices of the Security Council should as far as possible be avoided. It may be that at a later stage of the Assembly debates, the United States may wish to support a resolution containing the substance of paragraphs (6) through (9).”
Senator Austin thought that the last sentence of paragraph 10 took away all the strength of the position to that point and he thought that this sentence should be deleted. Senator Connally agreed that the sentence should be taken out. Senator Austin described the sentence as a break and a clog upon the U.S. position. Senator Connally added that we should not make statements for the future but state the present position and then move on.
Mr. J. Johnson pointed out that the position paper was meant for [Page 340] the Delegation’s deliberations and referred to this session of the Assembly. He also was agreeable to striking out the sentence.
Senator Austin polled the Delegation and it was agreed that the second sentence of paragraph 10 should be stricken out of the paragraph.
Senator Connally said he thoroughly agreed with the action taken and with the position paper. He pointed out that he and Senator Vandenberg had to confer with Secretary Byrnes. Therefore he would like an expression of opinion from the Delegation whether the U.S. views on the veto should be expressed early in the debate or wait until the complainants had developed their positions. Senator Austin said he would like to see the position put forward early. Mr. Bloom remarked that it would be useful for educational purposes to put forward the position at an early date.
Mr. Wadsworth said that as a political officer he would like to support the statement of Senator Connally. All delegations were looking forward to hearing Senator Connally speak early in the debate and were looking to the United States to support a correction of the abuses of the veto. They were most anxious to know how the United States would approach the problem. He thought that the U.S. position should be made clear as early in the debate as possible.
Senator Connally thanked Mr. Wadsworth and, as he was leaving, he said that he would like to know who was giving out everything that transpired in the Delegation meeting. Mr. Bloom said that he would like to know too and it had to stop. Senator Connally observed that the release of the information was not helping the Delegation. Senator Connally and Senator Vandenberg then left.14
[Here follows discussion of other subjects.]
- Supra.↩
-
Consideration of the voting question by the First Committee began on November 14 and by November 18 resolutions or amendatory resolutions had been submitted by Argentina, Australia, Cuba, Peru, and the Philippines Republic; for the Committee’s deliberations at this time, see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, First Session, First Part, First Committee, pp. 84–126, and pp. 323–328 (annexes 7, 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, and 7f); the First Committee record is cited hereafter as GA(I/2), First Committee.
Senator Connally led off the meeting on the second day (November 15) with a statement of the United States position which was based on the memorandum of November 12 (document US/A/C.1/43) as modified by the Delegation’s discussion on November 13. Senator Connally stressed to the Committee that “The General Assembly could best contribute by focusing any recommendations on general objectives rather than assuming to dictate technical details, which were the province of the Council’s own rules of procedure.” In concluding, Senator Connally lent the support of the United States Delegation in principle to the Australian resolution (ibid., p. 323, annex 7), while disapproving of certain of its specifics (ibid., pp. 92–94).
↩