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

IO Files: US/A/954

United States Delegation Position Paper

restricted

[New York,] November 20, 1947.

Report of the First Committee on the Convocation of a General Conference Under Article 109 of the Charter To Amend the Privilege of the Veto¹

and

Resolution of the Second Part of the First Session of the General Assembly in Relation to the Exercising of the Veto in the Security Council and the Extent to Which the Recommendations Contained in That Resolution Have Been Carried Out

A. United States Position

1. The United States should vote in favor of the Committee Resolution, which requests the Interim Committee of the General Assembly: to (a) consider the problem of voting in the Security Council; (b) consult with any committee which the Security Council may designate to cooperate with the Interim Committee in the study of the problem; and (c) report with its conclusions to the Third Session of the General Assembly; and which further requests the permanent members of the Security Council to consult with one another on this problem.

2. Since the United States introduced the Resolution, it would be appropriate for the United States Representative to make a brief statement in support thereof in the plenary if it appears, as seems likely, that speeches will be made against it. Since the resolution does not contain substantive recommendations, but merely requests further study, if possible, debate should be reduced to a minimum. The United States should not initiate nor participate in a debate on the substantive issues.

3. The question should be deemed an “important” one within the meaning of Article 18 and the adoption of the Resolution should therefore require a two-thirds majority. This point will probably not arise since in Committee 1 only the States of Eastern Europe voted against the Resolution.

B. History in Committee

The United States Representative in Committee 1 emphasized that the Resolution was a moderate one intended to ensure that “the next Assembly would approach the problem with better understanding and less antagonism toward a coordinate body”. The Eastern European States bitterly opposed the Resolution, taking the extreme position that the only acceptable action of the General Assembly would be to drop the matter from the Agenda.

The USSR, while supporting the general principle of consultation among the permanent Members of the Security Council, rejected that principle in connection with this subject on the ground that no changes in the voting formula of any nature would be acceptable to it. Despite such statements in the debates, none of the Eastern European States, excepting Yugoslavia, voted against the last paragraph of the Resolution which requested the permanent Members of the Security Council to consult with one another on the problem of voting.

Since the United States Resolution provided for further study of the problem, the representative of Argentina did not submit a resolution to give effect to his request for convocation of a general conference under Article 109. Likewise, the representative of China decided not to ask for a vote in Committee 1 on a substantive proposal which had previously been submitted, it being understood that the Chinese proposal would be referred to the Interim Committee.

Because a number of States were unable to support the first paragraph after the preamble of the United States Resolution, while favoring the second paragraph, the representative of Egypt requested that paragraphs be voted separately.

The preamble received 44 affirmative votes and 6 negative votes (the Eastern European States) with no abstentions. The first paragraph after the preamble received 30 affirmative votes and 7 negative votes (Eastern European States and Chile) with 11 abstentions. The second paragraph received 43 affirmative votes and 1 negative vote (Yugoslavia) with 8 abstentions. (Eastern European States and three Arab States). The Resolution as a whole received 36 affirmative votes and 6 negative votes (Eastern European States) with 11 abstentions. (Five Arab States, India, Yemen, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Sweden, Iceland), 4 absent including the Philippines.

C. Possible Developments in Plenary Session

It seems probable that a request will be made that the paragraphs of the resolution be voted on separately.

It is possible, but unlikely that the United Kingdom may seek to secure unanimous agreement on a resolution which omits the second paragraph after the preamble of the Committee Resolution. The United States must oppose any such effort not only because of its position in support of a study by the Interim Committee but also because Argentina and other States desiring changes in the present voting formula withheld their more drastic proposals on the understanding that the study would take place in the Interim Committee.

In all probability the Eastern European States will continue to oppose the resolution in the plenary debates and will raise in their speeches all the substantive issues. The United States should avoid! participating in the discussion of the substantive issues.

It is possible that some of the States which abstained would vote affirmatively in the Plenary Sessions if the United States position were further explained to them.

1. The First Committee report is printed as U.N. Doc. A/501, found in United Nations depository libraries. The report was read in toto to the General Assembly by the rapporteur of the First Committee on November 21; see GA (II), Plenary, vol. ii, pp. 1218–1220.