501.BB/12–1146
Memorandum of Telephone Conversations, by the Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (Hiss)
| Participants: | Hay den Raynor—U.S. Delegation to the General Assembly |
| David Popper—U.S. Delegation to the General | |
| Assembly Alger Hiss—SPA |
Reference is made to memorandum of conversation of December 10 on the same subject with Mr. Ross and Mr. Sandifer in New York. Yesterday, December 10, Mr. Eaynor called me after I had spoken to Mr. Sandifer and said that he had received from Mr. Sandifer the Department’s views as I had communicated them to Mr. Sandifer.
Mr. Raynor said that Mr. Matthews86 had informed him that the Secretary had accepted both parts of the Belgian amendment (i.e., the referral to the Security Council at a later date and the recommendation for recall of ambassadors and ministers). Mr. Raynor said that he understood the Secretary to mean that the resolution as a whole would be acceptable in spite of the fact that it contained the Belgian amendment. He did not think the Secretary had considered the question of our attitude toward that part of the Belgian amendment relating to the Security Council if the resolution were to be voted on in the Assembly paragraph by paragraph.
Mr. Raynor said that he thought the question of our attitude if the resolution were to be voted on paragraph by paragraph might well be [Page 1088] academic. He thought that if he indicated that the reference to the Security Council might give us some trouble if it were to be separately considered, Mr. Spaak would see to it that the resolution was presented simply as a whole.
Mr. Raynor said he thought that if the resolution were to be voted on as a whole it might be desirable for our Delegation not only to vote in the affirmative, as is now agreed all around, but to make a brief statement that we were going along with the majority in order to arrive at as near unanimity as possible. He thought such a statement would make a good impression. I said that I thought the Department would not object to such a statement if the Delegation thought it would be desirable under the circumstances.
Mr. Raynor then said that if the resolution were voted on by the Assembly paragraph by paragraph he was inclined to feel that we should actually support the provision relating to the Security Council but saying plainly that we do not like it for reasons previously expressed in the committee and that clearly it did not mean the Security Council would not make up its own mind as to whether any action at all was warranted. We would go on to say that despite our objections we were supporting the paragraph in the interests of unanimity.
Mr. Raynor suggested that I discuss his views in the Department and he would have further discussions in the Delegation.
After discussing the situation with Mr. Hickerson and Mr. Acheson this morning and not having heard from Mr. Raynor in the meantime, I called Mr. Popper in New York (Mr. Raynor being unavailable) and said that Mr. Acheson thought that if Senator Connally felt that the proposals suggested by Mr. Raynor were desirable under the circumstances the Department would have no objection. I emphasized that we thought Mr. Raynor should be guided by the Senator’s views in these respects.
- H. Freeman Matthews, Director of the Office of European Affairs.↩