IO Files: US/A/C.1/605
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Theodore C. Achilles of the United States Delegation Staff of Advisers
| Participants: | Sir Hartley Shawcross, United Kingdom Delegation |
| Sir Alexander Cadogan, United Kingdom Delegation | |
| Mr. Gladwyn Jebb, United Kingdom Delegation | |
| Mr. Charles Fahy, United States Delegation | |
| Mr. Theodore Achilles, United States Delegation |
The British seriously question the advisability of referring the Veto to the Interim Committee for study. They feel that what would be studied would not be the veto but Russian conduct in abusing the Veto and that any discussion of it without the Russians would be pointless. They feel the only real hope of avoiding misuse of the Veto lay in a closer approach between the positions of the permanent members on specific questions. To refer such a study to the Interim Committee would not only not help in this respect but would render Russian non-participation in the Interim Committee even more certain. They also doubted that the Russians would participate in any separate committee set up to study the Veto.
[Page 226]The British felt the best course would be to permit a general debate and then either to pass no resolution or to pass one merely asking the Security Council to take note of the views expressed in the Assembly.
The British inquired how we felt about the big five consultations on the Veto and were advised that we saw no objection but felt that it was the smaller countries which were most interested and that they should be given some means of discussing and studying the question.
The British wondered how far we intended to press our proposal that vetoes should not be exercised under Chapter VI. They foresaw great embarrassment for us should some contentious issue arise, concerning a Latin American question for example, upon which congressional and public opinion would expect us to vote our convictions, even if our position constituted a veto. They inquired how we planned to avoid exercising a veto, i.e., whether we expected to abstain or, if a vote were taken in which we were the only permanent member voting in the negative, we would call for a new vote and change our vote. We expressed preference for the latter and Cadogan said after long consideration that he thought this would be the only practical course. They also felt that if two, three, or four permanent members voted negatively on a question and seven members voted affirmatively, each of the negative votes would constitute a veto.
The British said that rather than have the permanent members renounce the right to veto under Chapter VI they would prefer to see Article 27, paragraph (3) either modified by voluntary understanding or amended to provide that parties to a dispute should refrain from voting under Chapter VII as well as Chapter VI.
They would like very much to discuss the whole question with Mr. Dulles and our advisers this afternoon or this evening.
Note: The above conversation took place at luncheon. Much less opposition to a study by the Interim Committee was indicated by Shawcross and Cadogan to Eaynor this morning and by Cadogan to Dulles this afternoon. It is accordingly believed that their position is not yet fixed.