IO Files: US(P)/A/C.1/85

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. G. Hayden Raynor, Adviser, United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly


The following summarizes the discussions with various Delegations:


Messrs. Wilgress1 and Macdonnell.2 The essence of the views expressed by the Canadians was that they would like to see a counter resolution of some kind because of public opinion at home. It would be [Page 457] difficult for them to vote down flatly the Vyshinsky proposal without some substitute.

United Kingdom

Roger Allen. The United Kingdom Delegation feels that some substitute is needed. They are not certain as to the timing of its submission, or as to the timing as to when they should speak again. Earlier today they thought it might be better to hold their resolution back for a while but later in the day seemed to be changing their opinion in the direction of putting it in early. Cadogan has a set speech which he can make tomorrow if necessary, but they seemed to think it would be better not to speak tomorrow. In our conversation the implication was very strong that the British are anticipating full Backing and a strong, blunt speech on our part. They are also not certain what the best timing would be for our speech, i.e., whether it should be made, after they offer their resolution, in support of it, or perhaps after Vyshinsky replies to Hector McNeil, which, they thought, would probably be tomorrow.

Belgian Delegation

I did not inquire directly of the Belgian Delegation, but I over-heard a conversation between Rolin, of Belgium, and Jebb, of the British Delegation, in which Rolin was taking the position that a good substitute resolution should be introduced. He was in effect asking Jebb if the Belgians could see any drafts which the British had oft this, and perhaps work together on it.


I did not inquire directly of the Australian Delegation, as Mr. Plim-soll3 has made it quits clear in the past that the Australians would Consider voting down the Vyshinsky resolution only on the condition that something would replace it. Mr. Plimsoll attributed this view directly to Dr. Evatt in past conversations.

South Africa

At first Mr. Andrews4 expressed the view that the best way to take care of the Vyshinsky proposal would be to refer it to the Conventional Armaments Commission. After I explained that this would be very undesirable, he agreed and seemed to concur with the idea that a substitute resolution of some kind would be the best solution. It was rather clear that the South African Delegation has not considered this question.

[Page 458]

The Netherlands

Ambassador van Roijen, without hesitating, expressed the view that a substitute resolution should be introduced, and passed, and that the Soviet resolution should be voted down. He expressed the hope that the United States Delegation would speak strongly and bluntly on this subject, backing up and extending what has been said by Bevin and Spaak. He feels that McNeil has not carried the argument far enough, in placing emphasis on the question of safeguards and the opening up of Russia to inspection. He said that someone should make it clear that even this would not be enough, that we needed to be satisfied that conditions within Russia in the armaments field were all right. He thought the point should be made of the present imbalance of power.

  1. Dana Wilgress, Alternate Member of the Canadian Delegation; Canadian Minister in Switzerland.
  2. R. M. Macdonnell, Adviser, Canadian Delegation.
  3. Mr. J. Plimsoll, Alternate Member, Australian Delegation.
  4. Harry T. Andrews, Member of the South African Delegation; South African Minister in the united States.