501.BC/4–1846: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Stettinius)
29. The following comments are an amplification of yesterday’s telegram97 on the Secretary General’s memorandum and also take into account Mr. Bonnet’s proposed resolution to which you may have to speak.
With particular reference to the Secretary General’s memorandum we think you should emphasize that all that the Council did with respect to the Iranian matter by its resolution of April 4 was to defer further proceedings and any possible action by the Council until May 6. In effect the Secretary General now suggests that it might [Page 433] be illegal for the Council not to take action until May 6. The Secretary General suggests the Council must now take action to drop the matter from the agenda. It has been the Council’s hope that this very action will seem appropriate on May 6. It appears it is a curious legal doctrine that the Council must now take action when it after careful consideration has decided by an overwhelming majority to defer any action until May 6.
The issues now under discussion in the Council relate in our opinion solely to the Council’s own methods of procedure. It seems to us manifest that the Council must have wide latitude in the determination of its procedure with respect to any particular case before it. There is nothing in the Charter which requires a different approach. On the contrary Article 30 expressly provides that the Security Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure. This authority obviously extends to adoption of particular methods of procedure not specifically covered by existing formal rules.
The whole practice of the Council in the past has demonstrated general agreement on the part of all members that prior to determining whether to consider a matter on the merits the Council should and indeed must engage in a preliminary discussion of any such matter. This is all that the Council has so far undertaken with respect to the Iranian case and in carrying out that discussion the Council on April 4 by its resolution of that date for its own reasons recited in the resolution determined to defer further proceedings, which would include further discussion, until May 6. Subsequently the Soviet representative has insisted on renewing the discussions before that date. This is of course within his rights but it is for the Council itself to determine what it considers the most effective and orderly method of procedure in this as in other cases.
It follows from the above considerations that the Council can and in this particular case has discussed a matter without having determined whether or not to take it under active consideration on the merits under Article 34. Under any other view of the Council’s authority it would be in no position to determine whether to proceed with consideration on the merits and it could not for reasons of its own convenience and orderly procedure select a particular time for its exploratory discussions. The filing of the complaint gives rise to the necessity for preliminary discussion but when the Council has once fixed a date for such discussion the mere withdrawal of the complaint does not deprive the Council of authority to go forward with such discussion. This continues to be a matter for the Council itself to determine.
Mr. Bonnet’s proposed resolution also deals with procedural aspects of the matter. It apparently proposes to change the procedural decision reached by the Council on April 4 by leaving the whole question [Page 434] of collection of information as to the results of the Iranian matter having been brought before the Council to the Secretary General for report by the Council to the Assembly. It seems to us that the procedure already decided upon by the Council whereby it can on May 6 itself consider further developments in the Iranian matter is preferable. We therefore see no need nor valid basis for a change in the Council’s determination of April 4.
- No. 28, April 16, supra. Telegram 29 was drafted on April 17.↩