Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, National Security Affairs, Foreign Economic Policy, Volume I

IO Files: US/A/AC.31/190

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Joseph S. Sparks, Adviser, United States Delegation to the General Assembly

secret

[New York,] November 5, 1949.

Sir Girja said that he had studied the French-Canadian draft resolution¹ which I had given him yesterday afternoon and had discussed it with the Prime Minister and with Sir B. N. Rau and that it was their conclusion that with a few minor changes it would be possible for India to support the resolution. He suggested that we should discuss these changes in detail with Sir B. N, Rau on Monday. He made a strong point that he did not feel that there was any conflict between the French-Canadian resolution and the Indian resolution² but that they were in fact complementary. He asked whether the United States would object to the submission of the Indian resolution. I said that, of course, we would not make any such objection but added that I was not in a position to know what our reaction to the Indian resolution would be beyond the general thinking which I had outlined to him yesterday. Sir Girja quickly said that India was not asking the United States to support its resolution. He said, however, that Sir Benegal had received certain indications of support for the Indian resolution and detected a definite feeling among some delegations that the Asian States and India, in particular, should take the lead on this problem.

With reference to the timing of the presentation of the resolutions, Sir Girja said that if we wished Sir Benegal to defer his presentation until the second or perhaps the third speech in the Committee, he was quite sure that could be arranged. I reviewed with him our conversation of yesterday afternoon and mentioned once again our conclusion that we would not ask Sir Benegal to give up the priority which he had to speak in the Committee. Sir Girja said that he understood this and asked if it was our opinion that the submission of the French-Canadian resolution first on the Committee agenda would strengthen its presentation. I said that, speaking specifically to the manner in which he had framed this question, our response would be in the affirmative. Sir Girja said that in these circumstances it was his intention to recommend to the Prime Minister that Sir Benegal yield his priority with the understanding that he would be the third person to speak in the Committee. He was quite certain that the Prime Minister and Sir Benegal would accept this recommendation but asked that I telephone him for final confirmation at 9 a. m. on Monday morning. I agreed to do this and expressed our appreciation for the cooperative thought and time which Sir Girja had given to this problem.

Later in the conversation which had gone to other matters, Sir Girja reverted to the question of timing of the presentation of the resolutions and said that it had occurred to him that a satisfactory solution might be to have the French or Canadians speak first in presenting their resolution, to have Sir Benegal speak second presenting the Indian resolution and then, perhaps, to have whichever of the French or Canadians had not spoken, speak third. I said that my offhand reaction to this suggestion was that I felt that Sir Girja had a full comprehension of our point of view on this whole subject and that we should, of course, be prepared to abide by whatever decision he and the Prime Minister and Sir Benegal reached.

Sir Girja said that one of India’s concerns was the tone of the presentation speeches and that he felt that the main reason why Sir Benegal felt it important that he should speak first was to establish the approach of the Committee to the problem on what would perhaps be a “higher level” than might be the case of the French or Canadian addresses. I replied that although I had not seen a copy of the addresses which the French or Canadians expected to make and did not even know whether or not they had as yet been drafted, I was certain that they would be in consonance with the tone of the French-Canadian resolution and that as India was prepared to support this resolution, it would in all probability not find the addresses offensive. Sir Girja said that he was sure this was the case.³

1. For the text of Canadian-French draft resolution A/AC.31/L.27, see GA (IV), Ad Hoc Political Committee, Annex, vol. i, p. 68.
2. For the text of Indian draft resolution A/AC.31/L.26, see ibid.
3. The first speaker at the 30th Meeting of the Ad Hoc Political Committee on Monday, November 7, was Jean Chauvel, Representative of France who introduced Canadian-French resolution A/AC.31/L.27. He was followed by Lester Pearson, Representative of Canada. The third speaker, Sir Benegal Rau, introduced Indian resolution A/AC.31/L.26. For the record of the 30th Meeting, see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fourth Session, Ad Hoc Political Committee, p. 165 (hereafter cited as GA(IV), Ad Hoc Political Committee).