IO Files: US/A/C.1/418
Memorandum by Mr. G. Hayden Raynor of the United States Delegation Staff of Advisers
Subject: Warmongering
Canada
Several conversations during the day between Mr. Pearson and Mr. Ignatieff of the Canadian Delegation and Mr. Raynor and Mr. Achilles of the United States Delegation disclosed the following information: The Canadians have decided to put in their resolution somewhat revised so that it now reads as follows:
“The United Nations condemn all propaganda inciting to aggressive war or civil strife which might lead to war, and urge members to promote, by all means of publicity and propaganda available to them, friendly relations among nations on the bases of the purposes and principles of the Charter.”
The Canadians now intend to speak first at tomorrow afternoon’s meeting. The speech will be delivered by Mr. Ilsley if he arrives on time, otherwise by Mr. Pearson.
The Canadian speech which was shown to us is a strong attack on the Soviet position. It charges that the Soviet objective is propaganda rather than doing anything about warmongering, it attacks particularly government controlled propaganda, and includes a denunciation of propaganda designed to incite class warfare in its “civil warmongering” section.
New Zealand
I spoke to Mr. Wilson of the New Zealand Delegation and outlined to him our thinking on this problem. He feels strongly that a counter resolution of some type such as the Australian proposal should be supported.
The Commonwealth in General
Mr. Ben Cockram of the United Kingdom Delegation who follows the dominions for his delegation and also for the British Embassy in Washington told me that he had made a very careful canvass of dominion [Page 91] sentiment. He says all of the dominions favor some type of counter-resolution such as the Australian resolution. He says this is a sentiment that is shared right through the dominion delegations from top to bottom. He also confirmed that the United Kingdom Delegation, although it had first felt otherwise, now also shared this view.
He said that the statement by former Governor Earl1 relative to dropping atomic bombs had apparently made quite an impression on the dominion delegations, and he thought in part was the cause of the present position. He told me that both Evatt and the Canadians would make strong speeches; a very strong one would be made by Evatt if Vyshinsky’s was especially strong.
He indicated that while it had not been quite decided whether McNeil or Shawcross would speak for the United Kingdom, it was probable that Shawcross would, in which event it was obvious that the address would be extremely critical of the Russians in connection with this matter.
- Presumably a reference to George H. Earle, former Governor of Pennsylvania.↩