IO Files: US/S/438
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. G. Hayden Raynor, Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of European Affairs (Hickerson)
Subject: Czechoslovak Case
| Participants: | Dr. Papanek, former Czechoslovak Representative to the United Nations |
| Mr. Hayden Raynor, of the Department of State |
Dr. Papanek spoke to me several times during this afternoon in the lounge and in the corridors at Lake Success.
[Among other things, Mr. Raynor and Dr. Papanek discussed the proposal that had just been presented to the Security Council that same day by the Chilean member, to the effect that a sub-committee of the Security Council should be appointed to hear “evidence, statements and testimonies” concerning the situation in Czechoslovakia. This was the second of two moves made by Chile regarding Czechoslovakia before the Security Council in as many months. The first had been made in a communication dated March 12, and resulted in placing the Czech item on the agenda of the Security Council, by virtue of bringing before the Security Council the allegations made in the aborted Papanek letter of March 10, that the political independence of Czechoslovakia had been violated by the threat of the use of force by the Soviet Union, and that this situation endangered the maintenance of international peace and security and should be brought to the attention of the Security Council. On occasion, the United States seemed about to assume an active role in the debate, and at meetings of the Security Council on April 6 and April 12, Ambassador Warren R. Austin, the United States Representative at the United Nations, won Security Council approval of a resolution asking the new Czech Government to participate without vote in the proceedings of the Council regarding Czechoslovakia (the Czech Government in the event declined to do so); and made a strong statement of some length (April 12) describing the events leading to the changes in the Czech Government. (Regarding these démarches by the United States, see United Nations, Official Records of the Security Council, Third Year, No. 53, pages 2–6, and ibid., No. 56, pages 24–33.). The question of Czechoslovakia was before the Security Council in several forms during March-May 1948, and is usefully described in general terms in United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Session, Supplement No. 2, Report of the Secretary Council to the General Assembly 16 July 1947 to 15 July 1948, pages 112 ff. In the latter stage, on May 24, the Soviet Union rejected the Chilean proposal of April 12 by use of the “double veto”, that is, cast a negative vote (“veto”) on [Page 173] the preliminary question of whether the Chilean draft resolution were procedural; and then a negative vote (“veto”) against the resolution itself. See also footnote 2, page 251.]
At least two times Dr. Papanek again mentioned the fact that he was still without official notice of his dismissal. I made no comment. (I am told by members of our Mission in New York that the only reason he has not been advised of his replacement by his successor is the fact that he has consistently refused to receive even registered letters from the United Nations on this point.) I do not know what he thinks he is accomplishing by this position. It may have something to do with funds. It is my feeling that the next time I speak to him I better make it very clear that insofar as we are concerned, we do not now regard him in any way as the Czechoslovak representative inasmuch as we have received proper papers concerning the appointment of his successor.