501.BC/4–2346: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Stettinius) to the Secretary of State
99. The Security Council at its 36th meeting Tuesday, April 23, decided to continue the Iranian question on its agenda until May 6, 1946. The Soviet delegate declared that the Soviet Government considered the decision contrary to the Charter and that it could not participate in any future Security Council discussion on the Iranian issue.
The meeting opened at 3:05 P.M. with all delegates at their places and Mr. Afifi, the Egyptian delegate presiding. After the provisional agenda was adopted the Chairman called attention to the report from the Councils Committee of Experts on the Secretary General’s letter commenting on legal aspects of the Iranian case. This report offered the majority opinion that the Security Council alone should decide of which matters it is “seized”.99
The Soviet delegate, speaking on the Committee of Experts report, said that the fact the experts were not able to reach a unanimous agreement led to the conclusion they followed the instructions of the heads of their delegations. He pointed out that the Secretary General’s memorandum concluded that the Council cannot deny a sovereign [Page 436] country the right to withdraw an appeal. The Soviet delegate recited the reasons he had given at earlier meetings why the Iranian question should be stricken from the agenda and concluded:
“Irrespective of the fact that the Charter gives no proper ground for the retention of this question on the agenda, some members of the Council are still trying, in vain, to have it remain on the agenda. These attempts are doomed to failure, Mr. President, and they will only discredit those who make them for they are attempting to sacrifice the Charter in order to give an opportunity for further discussion of this so-called Iranian question. Any attempt to make use of the Iranian question for this purpose is doomed to failure and is likely to have the most regrettable consequences.”
Mr. Stettinius pointed out that the U.S. had consistently maintained that there was no reason for the question being brought before the Council at this time. He saw no reason why the Iranian question should not have been allowed to remain on the agenda until May 6 as the Council voted on April 4. The U.S. delegate said that he was unable to agree with the conclusions reached by the Secretary General in his memorandum on legal aspects of the case. He emphasized that the U.S. strongly supported the opinion offered by the majority of the Committee of Experts.
“We believe that the argument in the Secretary General’s memorandum discloses a concept of the functions of the Security Council which is rather limited and which, if accepted, would have serious consequences for the future of this body. In ratifying the Charter, the United Nations placed upon the Security Council itself very great responsibilities. The Charter also gives us the powers commensurate with these responsibilities. Mr. President, I repeat that I am unable to concur in the proposal that the Iranian question should at this time be dropped from the list of matters of which the Council is seized,” Mr. Stettinius asserted.
The U.S. delegate added that he could not support a French proposal1 calling for the Council to take note of reports and agreements on the Iranian question and instructing the Secretary General to compile a report for submission to the General Assembly in September. He thought that the French proposal dealt with procedural aspects of the question and would, if adopted, reverse the Council’s April 4 resolution.
The Australian representative reviewed briefly the questions before the Council. He listed them as the Soviet request for removal of the Iranian question from the agenda and the French proposal to instruct the Secretary General to compile a report on the Iranian question for [Page 437] the General Assembly. He said that Australia shared the majority view of the Committee of Experts.
Mr. Hodgson again cited the lack of facts in the case and recalled that he had reserved the right to call for the facts. He mentioned the Iranian-Soviet oil agreement made while Soviet troops were in Iran and the failure of the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops from Iran in the time specified by the Tripartite Treaty of 1942. He wondered whether this alleged breach of the 1942 treaty constituted a threat to peace and said that he thought the Council still was competent to call for a complete investigation. He said that Australia would not vote for either the Soviet resolution to strike the question from the agenda or the French proposal.
The French delegate made a strong appeal for his resolution which he had offered at a previous meeting. He thought the Council could vote for it without diverging from the Charter and disagreed with the U.S. stand that it dealt exclusively with procedure.
[Here follow views of the delegates on the various resolutions.]
At this point all delegates, with the exception of the Chairman, had expressed their views and the Chairman called for a vote. The Council agreed that the French resolution could be considered an amendment to the Soviet request to strike the Iranian question from the agenda, and the Soviet delegate associated himself with the French proposal. Poland, France and the Soviet Union voted for the French resolution by a show of hands.
The Soviet delegate inquired about the Soviet proposal. The Chairman advised him that there were 3 votes in favor of it and 8 in opposition. Gromyko then declared that in view of the agreement between the Soviet Union and Iran on all questions and the withdrawal by Iran of the appeal the Soviet Government considered the decision contrary to the Charter. He added that the Soviet Government could not take part in future discussions in the Security Council on the Iranian question.
[Here follows discussion of matters other than the Iranian question.]
-
For the official record of the proceedings of the Security Council on April 23, see SC, 1st yr., 2nd ser., No. 2, pp. 201–214.
At no time was a United States statement made in the Committee of Experts or in the Security Council that followed at all closely the substance of telegrams 28, April 16, and 29, April 18, to New York, pp. 431 and 432, respectively. The Committee of Experts considered the Secretary-General’s memorandum at five meetings on April 16, 17, and 18. A summary record of its deliberations is found among the records of the Reference and Documents Section of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, in documents S/Procedure/60, 62–64, and 66. For text of the Committee report, dated April 18, see SC, 1st yr., 1st ser., supp. No. 2, p. 47.
↩ - For the French resolution, see telegram 80, April 16, from New York, p. 427. For the text of Mr. Stettinius’ remarks, see SC, 1st yr., 1st series, No. 2, p. 203, or Department of State Bulletin, May 5, 1946, p. 752.↩