501.BC/4–1246: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Stettinius)
urgent
20. For Stettinius. Reference Department’s telegram 11, April 8 and your 69 of April 12.
- 1.
- The Iranian Government may join the Soviet Government in asking
that the Iranian question be dropped from the agenda. If such a
proposal is made formally to the Security Council or even if it is
merely announced officially in Iran prior to your having an
appropriate opportunity to make the statement contained in
Department telegram 11 you should instead take a position along the
following general lines:
The United States is pleased that the Soviet Union and Iran consider that the issues between them are in course of being solved in a manner satisfactory to both parties. The difficulties between the Soviet Government and the Iranian Government have twice been brought to the Council’s attention. On the first occasion the Iranian Government complained of activities of the Soviet troops on Iranian territory which it contended were not authorized or permitted by the [Page 421] Tripartite Treaty of January 29, 1942 and interfered with the sovereignty of Iran. On the second occasion the Iranian Government complained of the continued presence of Soviet troops in Iran without its approval beyond the date stipulated for their withdrawal in that Treaty.
In the view of the United States the complaints of the Iranian Government were properly brought to the Council’s attention under Article 34 of the Charter. It is the clear duty of the Council to receive the complaint of any sovereign state that foreign troops are being used in its territory in a manner not authorized or permitted by treaty. It is the clear duty of the Council to receive the complaint of any sovereign state that foreign troops are continuing to remain on its territory without its consent beyond the date authorized by treaty. Such complaints present grave issues under Article 2, section 4 of the Charter, as to “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the Charter.” When such complaints are presented to the Council, clearly it is not permissible for the Council to take the position that the continuation of the conditions complained about would not endanger international peace and security.
The Council had before it on April 4 when it adopted the resolution on the Iranian matter the assurances given to it by the Soviet Government that withdrawal of Soviet troops had commenced and would be completed by May 6 and that this withdrawal was not conditioned upon other matters being discussed by the two Governments. These assurances and the willingness of the Iranian Government to accept them were the basis upon which the Council acted. I emphasize the facts that these assurances were given to the Council itself and that the action of the Council on April 4 was to continue the matter to May 6 in the hope and belief that the withdrawal of Soviet troops by that date would have disposed of all phases of the matter before the Council. Thus the assurances given to the Council and the action taken by the Council are interdependent.
We are now asked to consider this matter again and prior to May 6. It is not represented to us that the situation in connection with the withdrawal of troops has in any manner changed since April 4. Neither the Soviet nor the Iranian Government suggests that the assurances will not be carried out nor that they will be carried out sooner than was anticipated on April 4. To consider the case at this time would raise many difficult and grave questions which my Government hopes and believes will be rendered moot by the withdrawal of troops in accordance with the assurances. We do not see that any advantage would be gained by going into such questions at this interim phase of the matter. For these reasons my Government does not believe that there are valid grounds for changing the procedure adopted by the Council on April 4 for the disposition of the Iranian case.
That procedure seems to us sound and proper and I, therefore, move that the proposal that the matter be dropped from the agenda be brought before the Council on May 6, so that all remaining phases of this matter can be dealt with at the same time. On that date we sincerely hope that upon being informed that the withdrawal of Soviet [Page 422] troops from Iran has been completed, the Council will be able to drop the matter from the agenda. It seems to us that that would be the appropriate time to take action on the pending proposal.84
- 2.
- If your efforts to postpone action on an Iranian proposal to drop the case are not successful, you should vote against the proposal.
- 3.
- If you have occasion to use the statement set forth in telegram 11 of April 8, we suggest that in the second and third sentences of paragraph 5 the words “consider” be changed to “receive” and that the words “to interfere with its sovereignty” in the second sentence be eliminated.
- 4.
- We suggest that you may wish to approach Gromyko informally this week end to see if you cannot persuade him to allow his letter of April 6 to be passed over without discussion by the Council. You can point out to him that he has made his record and that if he allows discussion of his letter to go over to May 6 there will then be nothing to argue about. That would seem to be the proper time for the whole matter to be disposed of satisfactorily to all concerned. This would avoid additional controversy as we will oppose his proposal that the matter be dropped now. If he should be agreeable to such a suggestion, there would then, of course, be no need for you to make on Monday either the statement contemplated in this telegram or the statement contained in telegram 11.