Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

501.BC Greece/3–2047: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)

secret

Washington, April 4, 1947—8 p. m.

127. For Austin.

1. As you know, Ethridge believes it would cause serious delay in drafting Commission report if time were now devoted in Commission to renewed efforts to obtain agreement that team be left in Greece pending final SC action on report (retel 319¹ and 334² from Belgrade March 30 and April 1). Therefore, unless unexpected change in Commission sentiment occurs, directive from SC would be only method of obtaining decision that team be left (re Deptel 185 to Belgrade repeated New York 118).

2. Dept reaffirms your position that it is important that Commission leave representation in Greece during preparation and SC consideration of report. However, it is recognized that decision concerning whether resolution on this point should be introduced or brought to vote will depend upon progress of discussions and cannot be determined in advance. If it appears from advance consultation with all permanent members of SC or from discussions in SC that resolution to secure this result would fail to secure seven votes including concurring votes of permanent members, we consider it preferable not to introduce formal resolution or in alternative to withdraw before vote any resolution which you have introduced. We believe that it should be made clear, however, that only reason for failure to bring matter to vote is that such course could not result in SC decision.

3. The Dept attaches even more importance to continuing existence of the Commission during SC consideration of the Greek case. Terms of reference of Commission do not contain any express provision on Commission’s termination. However, Dept believes common sense and sound procedure require the continuance of the Commission during the consideration of its report by the Council and that it be available to explain and interpret the proposals in the report, to answer all questions, and to furnish any additional suggestions that may arise as a result of Security Council discussions. There are good precedents for this in SC. Chairman of the SC Subcommittee on Spain in presenting to SC amended recommendations thirteen days after submission of Subcommittee report made it clear that he was speaking on behalf of the Subcommittee of Five. (SC Journal, page 742.)

4. Dept feels strongly that SC should ensure that Commission is in New York during SC consideration. It would of course be desirable if agreement could be reached on this without a vote. If this is not accomplished, you may wish to contend that Commission continues without affirmative SC action until completion of SC consideration of report, or SC action terminating it. However, if necessary US should be prepared to submit resolution to ensure continuance of Commission. US should take position that this decision is procedural and thus compel veto under Part II paragraph 2 Four Power Statement.³

5. In event that discussion in SC April 7 provokes serious allegations or charges regarding US aid to Greece and Turkey we suggest you obtain additional time to consult your Government.⁴

Acheson

1. Not printed; but see: footnote 1, p. 829.
2. Not printed.
3. Dated June 7, 1945; for text, see Department of State Bulletin, June 10, 1945, p. 1047.
4. Ambassador Austin made a further statement on the Greek question before the Security Council on April 7. At the same time, he offered the following resolution: “Resolved that during the absence of a Commission from the area in which it has conducted its investigation, the Commission shall maintain in the area concerned a subsidiary group composed of a representative of each of the members of the Commission.” (SC, 2nd yr., No. 38, pp. 707, 708.)