Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Far East and Australasia, Volume VI

740.00119 FEAC/12–848

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Frank D. Collins of the Division of South Asian Affairs¹

November 17, 1948, 11:00 a.m.

confidential,

Participants:	Mr. Baig, Counselor of Pakistan Embassy
	Mr. Farookhi, Commercial Secretary, Pakistan Embassy
	Mr. Bishop,2 NA
	Mrs. Dunning, NA
	Mr. Collins, SOA

Time and Place: Mr. Bishop’s office, November 17, 11:00 a. m.

Mr. Baig, in previous conversations regarding Pakistan’s application for admission to the FEC, had brought up the question of the interpretation of the terms of reference and called attention to page 12, Department of State Publication No. 2448, “Moscow Meeting of the Foreign Ministers, December 16–26, 1945. Report by James F. Byrnes, Secretary of State—and Soviet Anglo-American Communique”. Because of doubts with respect to the way the terms of reference were being interpreted by the Pakistan Government it was suggested that Mr. Baig come to the Department for an informal conversation regarding this subject.

Mr. Collins indicated the interest of the Pakistan Embassy in the application of the GOP for membership in the FEC and drew attention to the rather long delay which was being encountered and the current interest regarding the interpretation of the terms of reference. Mr. Baig then reviewed the developments since the initial request by the GOP for application to FEC and remarked that the FEC has indicated that they could not consider the application sitting as a body but that the views of each participating government must be sought. Mr. Baig then drew attention to the terms of reference as outlined on page 12 of the reference publication and indicated that he interpreted the following statement: “The membership of the Commission may be increased by agreement among the participating Powers …”³ to mean agreement by majority and not unanimous agreement. In support of this he cited the US Supreme Court decisions which carry by majority agreement. Mr. Bishop pointed out that this phrase had been generally interpreted by the Member governments of the FEC to mean “unanimous agreement”.

The other point in question arose over the interpretation of the following: “The Commission may take action by less than unanimous vote provided that action shall have the concurrence of a majority of all the representatives including the representatives of the four following Powers, United States, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China.” Mr. Baig interprets this to mean a majority of the above Four Powers. In reply it was pointed out that this provision referred to policy action to be taken by the FEC as a body and did not refer to the enlargement of the membership of the FEC; in this connection it was also indicated that the interpretation as currently accepted by all the eleven members of the FEC was that unanimous approval was required by the four Big Powers and only a majority of the entire membership (including the four Big Powers). It was further pointed out that this clause is the basis for the current veto which has been used by the Big Powers on policy matters which have come up before the FEC. In reply to this Mr. Baig indicated that this statement comes under the heading “composition”, which would imply that it was dealing with a question of membership and that in any event the veto was not applicable since membership was being considered not by the FEC itself but by the individual governments which happen to be represented on the FEC.

In summarizing the efforts of the Department in presenting Pakistan’s request for admission to FEC, it was mentioned that the US Representative on FEC proposed two procedural steps, the first of which was rejected by the Soviet Ambassador; and on the second proposal the Soviet Ambassador indicated he had not received instructions from his Government. Mr. Baig had mentioned that the Pakistan Embassy had addressed a note to the Soviet Ambassador approximately six weeks ago regarding their application to FEC and that no reply had been received.

Mr. Bishop indicated that he would be glad to look further into the question of the interpretation of the terms of reference and, speaking off the record, that he would see what possibilities there might be for bringing into renewed consideration the application of Pakistan.⁴

1. Dated December 8.
2. Max W. Bishop, Chief of the Division of Northeast Asian Affairs.
3. Omission as indicated in original.
4. On January 19, 1949, the Department sent notes to the diplomatic missions of the Governments represented on the Far Eastern Commission to request their agreement to Pakistan’s admission as a member, and the Pakistani Ambassador (Ispahani) was so informed in writing on January 31, 1949. (740.00119 FEAC/11–1748)