501.BC/9–1346: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Acting Representative at the United Nations (Johnson)
193. Reference your 562.71 1. We have not intended to give you the impression that we prefer the Van Kleffens proposal rather than Parodies. We had meant to indicate that we thought you were warranted in indicating sympathy for and even supporting either or both depending upon circumstances. Recent developments have made us prefer a small factfinding committee and consequently we now prefer the Parodi proposal. However, we would like to have its authority limited to factfinding without authority to make recommendations (see paragraph 3 following).
2. For your information Maclean of the British Embassy called upon us this morning and read from Cadogan telegram of September 12 to London and from London reply. The British are opposed both to Van Kleffens proposal and to the establishment of a small factfinding committee. However, it appeared to us on the basis of excerpts read to us and Maclean expressly stated it was his own conclusion that London is more vigorously opposed to Van Kleffens proposal than to the [Page 218] committee. The British are particularly anxious to avoid any appearance of Council adopting any of the Ukrainian charges. They apparently feel that an admonition by the Council to Greece as proposed by Van Kleffens is bound to have implication that the Council thinks perhaps Greece has been at fault. For similar reasons they are opposed to committee as its creation would be inconsistent with flat dropping of the case by the Council thus throwing out Ukrainian charges. However, Maclean recognized that examination of limited issue of the fact of frontier incidents need not involve passing on merits of Greek position and hence believed less objectionable than Van Kleffens proposal.
3. Reference your paragraph 2. We do not see how you could very effectively urge extension of Van Kleffens proposal to cover entire northern boundary inasmuch as it is proposed as an exhortation to parties before the Council. We do not wish to urge at this stage that Yugoslavia and Bulgaria be themselves brought before the Council. In urging factfinding committee have included in its term of reference the other two frontiers you would not be charging incidents but asking that the Council seek information about a situation as to which allegations have been made before the Council.
4. Reference your paragraph 7. We had not intended to suggest that the subcommittee formulate recommendations for Council action. We had, however, thought it appropriate for committee to attempt to reach a conclusion as to whether facts found by them constitute a situation endangering the peace. We do not feel strongly about this latter point and would not object to the committee being limited to fact-finding.
5. With respect to continuing British desire that Ukrainian complaint be dismissed in its entirety we feel that in addition to considerations with which you are already familiar and which have lead us to our position on Van Kleffens and Parodi proposals the filing of the Albanian complaint72 yesterday makes proposal to drop case in its entirety academic. We pointed this out to Maclean in discussion with him today.
Repeated to Paris as 4842, Secdel 906.
- September 13, 1946, 5:05 p.m., not printed.↩
- The complaint was in the form of a telegram, dated September 11, 1946, from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The message drew the attention of the Security Council to the situation created on the Graeco-Albanian frontier by continual Greek provocations. The Greeks were said to be responsible for 59 incidents in 1945 and 57 incidents in the first 8 months of 1946, which denoted their aggressive intentions and constituted a direct threat to peace in the Balkans. The Security Council released the text of the telegram in S/158.↩