501.BB/10–849: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations ( Austin )

secret    priority
niact

Gadel 40. 1. Dept has given most careful consideration to revised draft Res. submitted in Delga 721 and to the reasons given in Delga 712 for the changes and additions.

2. We feel that it is undesirable and unwise to add paragraphs 4 and 5 for the following reasons:

a.
This strong condemnation of the Soviet Union is not in keeping with the purpose and context of the resolution as previously recommended by the Delegation and approved by the Dept.
b.
The tone and temper of these provisions is contrary to the general tone set for the US in the GA by the Secretary in his opening statement. We should not be led into different tactics by the mere fact of [Page 103] the Sov. Del having come forward with a Res condemning the US and the UK.
c.
There is a strong feeling in the Dept that we might not be able to obtain a large majority for a Res. containing these provisions. It would be a matter of most serious consequence to us to launch such a Res. and to fail to obtain a large majority for it or to have such a maneuver result in a successful effort to compromise by amending the Soviet resolution. We cannot afford to risk a large number of abstentions on this resolution.
d.
These provisions would turn this question into a conflict between the US and UK on the one hand and the Russians on the other. We do not have enough to gain in this particular case by asking other states to line up on this question. Several of the substantive points covered in the two paras, are up for a vote on other agenda items. We cannot fairly expect other Dels to go out of their way to condemn the Soviet Union in such strong terms in a general Res, of this sort.
e.
We can understand the desire of the Brit, to make a strong rejoinder to the Russian charges. However, we feel that this objective can be accomplished by a strong speech by the Brit, covering contents of paras. 4 and 5, if they wish, and by the speeches which we and other interested Dels, make on the subject. It will not advance the work of the Assembly or materially advance our own objectives to have such condemnation embodied in this Res. It might have the effect of impairing the chance of effective action on other matters pending before the Assembly.
f.
We would, in a sense, by including such provisions in the Res. be resorting to tactics similar to those for which we condemn the Russians; that is, making personal attacks upon individual states. So far as any condemnation of Russian tactics is required, it is implicit in the text of the Res. as it previously stood. Laying bare the Russian lack of good faith in arriving at honest and peaceful solutions can better be brought about in connection with specific cases requiring action by the Assembly.
g.
The addition of the two condemnatory paras, converts the substitute Res. into an obvious rebuttal in kind to the Soviet proposal and would be taken as such by the GA and public opinion generally. This would diminish the effectiveness of our proposal since it would become an obvious tactical move rather than a constructive alternative to a cynical propaganda move by the Soviets.

3. For the foregoing reasons the Dept feels strongly that this question should be reexamined promptly with the UK and the French Dels with a view to persuading the UK to cover the condemnatory ideas that they have in mind in their statement to the Committee and to the Assembly.

4. As to remainder of Res. we feel that comparable provisions of original text (Delga 62)3 are in general preferable, but we offer no specific comments.

5. Dept agrees with your conclusion that it would be desirable to have the US and the UK sponsor Res. The question of sponsorship, [Page 104] however, is a matter which must be left finally to the discretion of the Delegation.

Webb
  1. Supra.
  2. October 8, p. 100.
  3. October 6, p. 97.