501.BC/9–148: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
570. Re Hyderabad request to SYG to bring dispute with India to attention SC (Doc S/986),1 Dept agrees that US rep should take no initiative toward SC consideration.
[Page 373]If another Member SC proposes placing it on agenda and question arises as to Hyderabad’s right as “state” to present matter under Art 35 (2) you should take following position:
- 1.
- There is considerable doubt as to Hyderabad’s legal status as “state” within meaning of Art 35 in light of its past position and terms of UK Indian Independence Act and Standstill Agreement;
- 2.
- It would be futile to have extended debate on the question of whether or not Hyderabad is a “state” within the meaning of Article 35 (2). It is clear from the known facts that a dispute exists and that Hyderabad is a party to that dispute;
- 3.
- Broad intent of Charter and general philosophy of UN is to allow parties to a dispute at least some hearing;
- 4.
- On balance, therefore, US should vote in favor of placing matter on SC agenda for consideration without prejudice to question whether Hyderabad is or is not a State within the meaning of Article 35 (2). If motion is not strictly limited to Nizam’s communication but in effect can be taken as placing Hyderabad-Indian dispute on agenda, this may be taken as satisfying requirements of Art. 35 (1) and Rules 6 and 7 of SC Rules of Procedure without reference to Article 35 (2).
Similarly, if matter is placed on agenda, Hyderabad should be invited to participate in discussion without deciding whether it is or is not a State within the meaning of Article 32. See Deptel 344 Aug 8 19472 re participation of Indonesian Reps in SC discussion.
In view of unavoidable delays even in most expeditious ICJ procedure and in view fact Standstill Agreement will expire November 29, Dept considers impractical reference to ICJ question of Hyderabad’s status.