IO Files: US/A/C.1/1610
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Harley A. Notter, Adviser, United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly
Subject: US/UK Substitute for the Soviet Resolution
| Participants: | Mr. Hector McNeil | } | United Kingdom Delegation |
| Sir Alexander Cadogan | |||
| Mr. D. S. Laskey | |||
| M. Jean Chauvel | } | French Delegation | |
| M. Pierre Ordonneau | |||
| Senator Warren R. Austin | } | United States Delegation | |
| Mr. John Hickerson | |||
| Mr. Charles P. Noyes | |||
| Mr. Hayden Raynor | |||
| Mr. Harley Notter |
The discussion was started by the Senator on the question of sponsorship, but immediately Mr. McNeil raised the question of the “Notes [Page 114] with Regret” paragraph. He thought that it should be in the resolution. Mr. Chauvel was asked for his views and said his Delegation would support more strongly a mild resolution and that they would not, therefore, like this third paragraph though they would not vote against it or the resolution. In his opinion it did not strengthen the resolution. After the Senator asked whether the British sponsorship was dependent upon the third paragraph, Mr. McNeil stated that the British would support and co-sponsor our draft,1 but if we were open to the idea, he desired very much to have our reconsideration of this paragraph for its inclusion. His government desired it to be in. The Senator indicated that he hoped Mr. McNeil had the authority to approve it one way or the other, in or out, and Mr. McNeil did not dissent.
It was agreed that the Soviet Resolution would definitely be reached Monday after next,2 or at least by November 13th or 14th. Therefore, it was necessary to decide quickly. It was agreed that the US and UK should sponsor, the resolution. It was felt that our manoeuverability and assurances against unwelcome amendments would be enhanced if there were no wider sponsorship. On the “Notes with Regret” paragraph, or the so-called third paragraph, it was argued by the Americans that it would lose votes and that the gains were doubtful in return. In reply to a question, Mr. McNeil stated that he did not think it would lose votes, though some would abstain on this paragraph and on the resolution as a whole with this provision in it, and that this paragraph would be a means of giving a direct reply to the Soviet charges. In return it was argued that the original British proposal containing a much more specific condemnation would have a chance of achieving such a gain, but that the modified present wording would not.
On the possibility of an additional paragraph concerning peace settlements, it was agreed that no such paragraph should be initiated by the US and UK, but the door was left open for its consideration in the event that we find strong pressure from other friendly Delegations for its inclusion.
On Atomic Energy, the French approved the present wording, following prolonged discussion of the advantages or disadvantages of including the same wording as would expectedly come out of the debates in the Ad Hoc Committee on this subject. It was argued by the Americans and finally the British that we could not have divergent wording without serious risks of difficulty. The French, however, did propose breaking up the present paragraph in Document US/A/C.1/1586 [Page 115] into three paragraphs and that these should come at the end of the resolution, the point on Atomic Energy being put last in order to strengthen it. The British agreed and then we did.
There was further consideration of the problem of getting the draft into the hands of friendly Delegations. The British urged that it not get to the newspapers, and it was finally decided that (a) the new draft would be put in the hands of the Delegates dining with Senator Austin on Monday evening,3 and (b) that the decision on when to table the resolution in the Assembly would be made by the Senator and Mr. McNeil later and probably during the Soviet opening speech in Committee I.
The final upshot on the third paragraph left the matter standing as follows: The British argued strongly for its inclusion and asked us to give it renewed consideration. Mr. McNeil said he felt certain he was expressing Mr. Bevin’s strong views on this matter. We agreed to reconsider. Mr. McNeil made it clear, however, that he will accept our decision on it and even if against their position be a co-sponsor of the resolution.4
The other small changes which had occurred since the last agreed draft with the British and French were approved.
- Reference is to US/A/C.1/1586, November 3, not printed. This draft differed substantially from the agreed United States–United Kingdom draft of October 10 (see Delga 82, October 10, p. 107) in several areas. Most notably, it did not include paragraph 3 of the latter text, the “notes with regret” paragraph. (IO Files)↩
- November 7.↩
- See memorandum of conversation by Mr. Freers, p. 116.↩
- In Delga 181, November 4, Ambassador Austin reported on this meeting and requested the “definitive views” of the Department on the “notes with regret” paragraph (501.BB/11–449). In Gadel 91, November 5, the Department replied as follows: “In light of McNeil’s willingness to go along with resolution despite deletion of “notes with regret” para, Dept’s view is that this paragraph should be deleted.” (501.BB/11–549)↩