560.AL/4–2946: Telegram
The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Gallman) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 29—5:41 p.m.]
4581. For Wilcox and Brown from Hawkins. 1. Discussed with Liesching and colleagues this morning plan outlined your 3496, April 25, 4 p.m. Their ‘tentative reaction was generally that you had done a good job of thinking out the problem but they did not want to commit themselves in any way until they had opportunity for full consideration and for consultation with Ministers. Liesching pointed out that uncertainty regarding the loan legislation makes it difficult for them to make plans; that since British participation probably depends on getting the loan, Ministers may hesitate to commit themselves to a program which seems to disregard this. We suggested that the only course to pursue would be to make plans on the assumption of passage of the loan; that otherwise no definite plans could be made for weeks or months and the whole program would be delayed. Liesching remarked that if they proceed on this assumption, Ministers might feel that it would be necessary to make suitable reservations.
- 2.
- Other tentative British comments on the plan were as follows: Shackle suggested that decision on membership of drafting sub-committee be deferred until near the end of the July meeting when it will be possible to see what positions are being taken and the membership can be determined accordingly; Liesching pointed out that since the ECOSOC resolution calls for holding the formal conference in the latter part of 1946, the Council sooner or later will have to change this; Liesching also raised question whether the meeting of the Preparatory Committee would be convened without further reference to the Council but presumed it could; referring to your suggestion that each country be represented at the July meeting by only a few persons, Liesching thought that in view of the subjects to be covered the British would need a delegation of 8 to 10 people; Liesching had some [Page 1321] doubt about holding the initial meeting in New York and questioned whether representatives attending the ECOSOC meeting would in many cases be the same as those attending the Preparatory Committee meeting; Geneva was mentioned as a possibility and as Liesching seemed inclined toward that location it is possible British will propose this.
- 3.
- Liesching said the plan would be studied carefully and British position regarding it would be formulated promptly, but he probably could not give us a final view before next week. We stressed urgency.
- 4.
- Our own views are that the plan outlined in your reftel is satisfactory. We think Shackle has a point in suggesting deferring selection drafting sub-committee until late in initial meeting of Preparatory Committee; that New York is satisfactory location but that Geneva is worth considering.
- 5.
- Geneva would probably appeal to European members of UNO who tend to feel that UNO work is being concentrated too much in US or UK. It offers good physical facilities, good mid-summer climate and quick travel facilities for UK and continental countries which is important in view of staff shortages. With improvement in recent months in Soviet-Swiss relations, former might be agreeable to Geneva. On the whole, would provide good environment for extended and arduous work of Preparatory Committee and drafting subcommittee. Translation and secretarial facilities will be available in New York but may exist or might be provided in Geneva.
- 6.
- Regarding your paragraph 5, we suggest that other countries also be urged to exchange request lists among themselves.
- 7.
- We assume that in giving us discretion to consult British, you did not imply possibility of concluding arrangements with ECOSOC without advance British concurrence in program, as this would jeopardize full British cooperation which is indispensable. [Hawkins.]