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

501.BB/10–2246

The Acting Secretary of State to the Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Johnson)

secret ߓ urgent

Washington, November 6, 1946—7 p.m.

272. For US Gadel. Ur tel 692, Oct. 22, 10 p.m.⁶² Department has prepared additional guidance on that part of position paper “Problems raised by the Report of the Security Council to the General Assembly” (SD/A/C.1/35a) which deals with the MSC and special agreements under Article 43. Text which follows supplants Section III, Subsection 1 (pages 3 and 4) of reference paper:

SD/A/C.1/44 Rev. 1

November 5, 1946

Security Council Report to the General Assembly (Part II, Military Staff Committee)

guidance from the department of state

I. Suggested Position

1. It is the Department’s feeling that an active role for the Delegation in the debate on Part II of the Security Council Report is not indicated except to oppose motions or resolutions, the intent or effect of which would be critical of the Military Staff Committee.

2. It is suggested that the Delegation should not attempt to direct the course of the debate towards criticism of the Soviet Government, if such criticism is not made by other Delegations.

3. It is suggested further that the Delegation should not attempt to divert criticism leveled at the Soviet Government for the lack of progress of the Military Staff Committee, if such criticism is made by other Delegations.

4. If questions of fact are asked by Delegations not represented on the Military Staff Committee, the Delegation should feel free to consult Delegations of the other members of the Military Staff Committee in order to concert efforts in supplying answers.

5. It is suggested that motions or resolutions dealing with Part II of the Report of the Security Council be forwarded to the Department in order that additional guidance may be furnished the Delegation.

II. Background

In connection with the Security Council Report to the General Assembly (Part II, Military Staff Committee), it was suggested that the Delegation seek guidance from the Department “if proposals expressing the Assembly’s concern, or calling upon the Security Council for further information or explanations, or urging it to direct the Military Staff Committee to take more vigorous steps in discharge of its responsibility are put forward” for the Assembly’s consideration (SD/A/C.1/35a, page 4). In secret telegram 692 of October 22 from the Delegation guidance was requested from the Department, in consultation with the War and Navy Departments, in advance of any particular recommendations arising in the consideration of Part II of the Security Council Report.

III. Discussion

The Department has been in consultation with the War and Navy Departments and presents the following views for the guidance of the Delegation.

It is a delicate matter to prepare guidance on this subject in as much as the United States is in possession of fuller and more accurate information regarding the work of the Military Staff Committee than is the General Assembly. In the absence of authorization by the Security Council to supply the General Assembly with information regarding the Military Staff Committee’s activities since July 15, it is not believed that the United States Delegation should be the vehicle for the transmission of such information to the General Assembly. It is for the Security Council to decide whether and when to make this latter information available.

However, unofficial information regarding the work of the Military Staff Committee after July 15 is generally available through press reports. Although incomplete and not entirely accurate such reports lead to the conclusion that the Soviet Delegation was entirely to blame for the little progress achieved. Especially is this so if such reports are read in conjunction with Part II of the Security Council’s Report.

Thus Members of the Assembly may raise questions regarding the activities of the Military Staff Committee not covered by the Report; about the reasons for the limited progress made; about the prospect of more rapid progress in the future. If Delegations were to attribute to all governments represented on the Military Staff Committee equal blame for the slow progress made, it is believed that this would be unjustified by the facts. In such case, the Delegation should feel free to point out in debate that delegations of four governments represented on the Committee submitted promptly their proposals of principles for the organization of forces to be made available to the Security Council while the fifth, that of the Soviet Government, did not make its proposals until a date after that covered by the Report and then in a form which has not facilitated progress.

Moreover, the Department shares the view of the representatives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the Military Staff Committee that it is the Soviet Government and not its delegation which must bear responsibility for the Military Staff Committee’s limited progress.

On the other hand, the Department desires that no action of the General Assembly should reflect adversely upon the Military Staff Committee. The Department is particularly anxious that the representatives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should not come in for criticism.

IV. Conclusions

In the light of these considerations, it is the Department’s view that while the Delegation should not oppose debate on Part II of the Security Council Report, it should not take a prominent part in the debate by (1) attempting to direct its course towards criticism of the Soviet Government or (2) diverting such criticism if the Soviet Government comes in for criticism at the hands of Delegations for the lack of progress of the Military Staff Committee. In general, it is felt that an active role in this debate is not indicated, except to oppose motions or resolutions, the intent or effect of which would be critical of the Military Staff Committee.

However, if questions of fact are asked, the Delegation should feel free to consult Delegations of the other members of the Military Staff Committee with a view to supplying answers.

Motions or resolutions dealing with Part II of the Report of the Security Council should be forwarded to the Department in order that additional guidance may be furnished the Delegation.⁶³

Acheson

62. Not printed. It requested additional guidance in view of strong criticism within the Delegation of the recommendation contained in SD/A/C.1/35a, not printed, that in the event that a proposal were made to criticize the work of the Military Staff Committee, the Delegation should seek further guidance. Senator Vandenberg had expressed the view that the United States should support a resolution expressing the concern of the General Assembly with respect to the lack of progress. (501.BB/10–2246)
63. At its 55th Meeting, December 11, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the following resolution: “The General Assembly, having received and discussed the report of the Security Council, resolves to pass to the next item of the agenda.” (United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, First Session, Second Part, Plenary Meetings, p. 1133). No debate on the substance of the report occurred in Plenary meetings or in the First Committee to which it had been referred.