501.BC/4–1546: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Stettinius) to the Secretary of State
75. The Security Council discussed for more than 3 hours Monday afternoon, April 15,86 the Russian demand that the Iranian question be removed from its agenda, and adjourned without taking a vote. The discussion will continue at a meeting called for 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 16.
Chairman Dr. Quo opened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. All delegates were present. The provisional agenda was adopted without comment.
The Chairman read a letter from the Iranian Ambassador, announcing that Iran wished to withdraw its complaint from the Security Council. Dr. Quo said the letter was given to him by the Iranian representative at 2:00 p.m. Monday, April 15.
A telegram received by the Iranian representative from his Government was quoted in the letter as follows:
[Here follows last paragraph of telegram 73, April 15, from New York, printed supra.]
Ambassador Gromyko was the first speaker. He called attention to his letter of April 6 in which he “insisted” that the Iranian question be removed from the Security Council agenda. He said that the Security Council decision of April 4 (the vote to review the Iranian question on May 6) could be justified only if the situation in Iran constituted a threat to the peace and security of the world. He added that only a person without any “sense of reality” could argue that the situation did constitute a threat to peace. Gromyko argued that the April 4 Council decision was therefore contrary both to the spirit and the letter of the Charter. He also stated that the Security Council [Page 425] could not take a decision on situations or disputes of the kind referred to in the Charter without having heard both parties immediately concerned, and maintained that this condition had not been fulfilled because of the Soviet Union’s refusal to participate in the discussions prior to April 10.
Gromyko said that the arguments put forth in his letter of April 6 and his supplementary remarks proved that the demand for the removal of the Iranian question from the agenda was well founded. He added that such was clear even before the Iranian Government decided to withdraw the request it had made to the Security Council. He asked the Council to remove the Iranian question from its agenda.87
Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., followed Gromyko. He said that the U.S. was naturally pleased to learn that the Soviet Union and Iran considered that the issues between them are in the course of being solved in a manner satisfactory to both parties. He pointed out, however, that it was not represented to the Council that the situation in Iran, in connection with the withdrawal of Soviet troops, has changed at all since the Council decision of 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 reconsider 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 Soviet 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, and will therefore not support the motion to delete the Iranian matter from the agenda at this time,” Stettinius declared.
The U.S. representative concluded with the hope that on May 6, upon being informed that withdrawal of Soviet troops from Iran has been completed, the Security Council will be able to drop the matter from the agenda.88
[Here follows further discussion of the Soviet motion by delegates of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Brazil, all voicing opposition to the motion.]
… Gromyko spoke for a second time for his motion to delete. He said that even Iran now said it was not necessary to continue the matter, and the remarks of the U.S. and United Kingdom delegates [Page 426] only tended to confuse the issue. Gromyko said there was nothing left to consider since Iran had withdrawn its request.89
[Here follows further discussion in which the Soviet motion was supported by the delegates of France and Poland and opposed by those of Mexico and Egypt.]
Speaking for a third time Gromyko said that the U.S. proposal was contrary to the Charter as it denied a member nation the right to withdraw a request. He added that his doubts about whether the U.S. and U.K. were really anxious for a quick, peaceful solution of the Iranian case were confirmed by the position these countries had taken in today’s debate. He accused the U.S. delegate of claiming “to know better than the Iranian Government what the Iranian Government should do in order to reach a solution of its difference with the Soviet Union.”90
At this point Chairman Quo said it was getting late and asked if the members would object to adjournment until morning, explaining he still had the names of several speakers on the list.
Stettinius said he did not object to the adjournment, but he wanted to make it clear that the U.S. had made no proposal. He added that his remarks merely outlined the U.S. views on the Soviet request to delete the Iranian question from the agenda.
Sir Alexander Cadogan said that the Soviet delegate was entirely wrong about his expressed doubts over the U.K. position. He added that the British Government always had wanted a quick, peaceful solution of the question, which it believed had been found in the Council resolution of April 4. It was the Soviet representative who had brought the matter up at this time by asking the Council to rescind its own resolution. Had he not done so, Cadogan concluded, we should have heard, I hope, no more of the Iranian question.”
Dr. Quo adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
- For the official record of the proceedings of the Security Council on April 15, see SC, 1st yr., 1st ser., No. 2, pp. 122–141.↩
- For text of remarks made by Ambassador Gromyko, see SC, 1st yr., 1st ser., No. 2, p. 123.↩
- For full text of remarks made by Mr. Stettinius, see ibid., p. 126, or Department of State Bulletin, April 28, 1946, p. 706.↩
- For text of these remarks made by Ambassador Gromyko, see SC, 1st yr., 1st ser., No. 2, p. 133.↩
- For text of these remarks by Mr. Gromyko, see ibid., pp. 139–141, passim.↩