501.BC Greece/4–1647: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations ( Austin ) to the Secretary of State
priority
356. There follows my appraisal of developments in SC since my speech on March 28,1 regarding US position on question of leaving SC Investigation Commission team in northern Greek border area and on US aid to Greece and Turkey. There is set forth course of action based on this appraisal which I think it advisable to follow and will do so in SC meeting on Friday morning unless Department has other suggestions.
- (1)
- Support of US proposal that team be left in area has been
indicated to US by all members of Council except USSR and Poland.
Gromyko’s statement that he “could not support” US proposal would
indicate that he may not employ veto. Revised resolution would read
substantially as follows:
“Resolved that pending a decision of the SC, the Commission shall maintain (in the area in which it has conducted its investigation) a subsidiary group composed of a representative of each of the members of the Commission, (who will continue to perform such functions within the terms of reference contained in the Council’s resolution of December 19, 1946, as the Commission may direct)”.
- The first parenthesis is in response to suggestions by both China and Brazil. The last parenthesis is in response to suggestions by Syria and [Page 836] China. Parodi2 agrees to accept two suggestions and offer them as perfecting language to the resolution. I feel that in view of open support for this revised proposal there is no reason for US to retreat from position set forth in my statements of March 28 and April 103 strongly advocating leaving of team. To drop the matter at this time because of Soviet opposition and without satisfactory and substantial reason would leave us open to criticism of insincerity. I do not think that we should be concerned about effect of a Soviet veto, if such should occur.
- (2).
- Re deferment of action on Soviet proposal that special commission be established by SC to supervise aid to Greece, I believe we should stand on our statement of April 10. I should much prefer that the Council postpone action on the Soviet proposal. We have made our position clear, however, and I do not at present think it would be wise for us to make any further statement pressing for postponement or to make a motion to this effect.
- (3).
- In regard to the merits of the Soviet proposal, unless and until the Council decides to take a vote immediately, I would prefer not to make any further statement or in any case avoid changing our position that we neither oppose nor support the Soviet proposal. If, however, the Council should decide to vote immediately, I would, before the vote was taken, want to vigorously oppose the “supervision” envisaged by the terms of the Russian resolution. I would make it clear that the US would, however, abstain on the vote rather than veto the resolution. We believe the Soviet proposal would have only two supporting votes.
- (4).
- We have noted suggestion of Embassy Moscow (retel 1336 from Moscow dated April 134) that Gromyko proposal of supervisory commission be met with counter-proposal that UN supervise Soviet assistance to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Yugoslavia if US aid to Greece and Turkey is to be subjected to UN supervision. While I am not sure that this would serve any useful purpose at this juncture, it would be most helpful for USDel to have all available information re Soviet aid to its satellites, particularly to those who are members of UN.5
Dept., please repeat to Geneva for Ethridge, London, and Moscow for Secretary.
- See footnote 2, p. 828.↩
- Alexandre Parodi, French Representative at the United Nations.↩
- For Ambassador Austin’s statement of April 10, see SC, 2nd yr., No. 35, p. 742.↩
- Not printed.↩
- In telegram 161, April 17, to New York, the Department expressed its agreement with telegram 356 (501.BC Greece/4–1647).↩