Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, General; The United Nations, Volume I

Policy Planning Staff Files

Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of International Security Affairs (Johnson) to the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan)

secret

[Washington,] August 6, 1947.

Subject: U.S. Program in the Forthcoming Session of U.N. General Assembly

1. I believe it would be most worthwhile for the U.S. at the forthcoming session of the U.N. General Assembly, to make a clear-cut statement which would re-state U.S. policy and objectives in the U.N. and would point out how our attempts to carry out that policy and to build up the U.N. have been consistently frustrated by the obstructionist policies and tactics of the U.S.S.R.

This statement, which should be moderate and regretful in tone, should give a history of our efforts and of how they have been blocked. It should point out the relation between the Soviet position in the U.N. and the way in which the Greek–Turkish aid program and the Marshall Plan have been handled. It should also refer to our views and intentions on the provision of armed forces and other matters (including atomic energy, if things work out that way).

I am deeply convinced that such a statement should not include any language to the effect that the frustrations in the Security Council have led us to the conviction that that body should not be used as a forum for dealing with political disputes.

2. With respect to an affirmative set of proposals designed to carry on from the statement, I think the presentation of such proposals would be desirable, if, but only if, they had substantive merit.

3. With respect to the first suggestion advanced by Mr. Rusk in his memorandum to Mr. Lovett,¹ I have the following comments:

(a) Under present circumstances, there is real advantage, in my opinion, in having in continuous existence a U.N. body to which all questions of principle relating to crucial issues of international relations can be presented, without running into the problems raised by the specific nature of the Security Council’s competence and by its voting procedure. There would also, as Mr. Rusk suggests, be advantage in focusing world attention on methods of indirect aggression, through the deliberations of such a U.N. body.

(b) Whether such a standing committee should also have broader powers than those suggested by Mr. Rusk should be considered. It might, for example, be desirable to make such a committee a forum to which individual nations could bring problems which, on the face of them, are not readily susceptible of effective treatment in the Security Council.

(c) Accordingly, while I am not yet convinced that the U.S. should present a proposal along the lines of Mr. Rusk’s first suggestion, I do feel that it is worthwhile to have this suggestion elaborated on an urgent basis in order that its probable advantages and disadvantages can be more accurately weighed.

4. I cannot now see any affirmative program which the U.S. could introduce, except one based on Mr. Rusk’s first point, which would have sufficient value in itself to justify advancing it.²

Joseph E. Johnson

1. Post, p. 567.
2. On August 7 the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan) submitted to the Under Secretary of State a Policy Planning Staff Paper (PPS/5, printed p. 594) containing the staff’s views of the Rusk proposals for the adoption of a United States program for the forthcoming meeting of the General Assembly. With specific reference to United States policies that were subsequently carried out at the United Nations, the relevant parts are sections 3, 4, and 5.