IO Files: US/A/392
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. G. Hayden Raynor of the United States Delegation Staff of Advisers
In the lounge during lunch today, I asked Mr. Falla1 if he knew the reaction of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Secretary’s speech.2 He was reserved in his reply, stating that he had heard little [Page 174] discussion of it but did, however, say that he personally questioned whether our proposition for an Interim Committee of the Assembly was constitutional. I explained to him that in our view it was clearly constitutional.
Specifically, on the constitutional question, Mr. Falla asked how we could overcome the definite concept in the Charter of the distinction between the Assembly meeting only once a year and the Security Council being in continuous session. He also expressed the thought that from the psychological point of view we may be expected to have found less opposition if we had not termed the proposal a committee on peace and security—if we had simply said interim committee of the General Assembly and eliminated the words peace and security which he thought brought out into sharp focus the possible conflict of jurisdiction with the Security Council.