IO Flies: US/A/C.1/1704
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. G. Hayden Raynor, Adviser, United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly
Subject: Substitute for the Soviet Resolution
| Participants: | Dr. Jose Arce—Argentine Delegation |
| Ambassador Fernand van Langenhove—Belgian Delegation | |
| Ambassador Cyro de Freitas-Valle—Brazilian | |
| Delegation Mr. Paul J. Martin—Canadian Delegation | |
| Ambassador Hernan Santa Cruz—Chilean Delegation | |
| Ambassador Henrik Kauffmann—Danish Delegation | |
| Ambassador Jean Chauvel—French Delegation | |
| Sir Benegal N. Rau—Indian Delegation | |
| Dr. Charles Malik—Lebanese Delegation | |
| Dr. Arne Sunde—Norwegian Delegation | |
| Sir Mohammed Zafrulla Khan—Pakistani Delegation | |
| Mr. Hector McNeil—United Kingdom Delegation | |
| Dr. Luis Padilla Nervo—Mexican Delegation | |
| Sir Alexander Cadogan—United Kingdom Delegation | |
| Mr. Parrott—United Kingdom Delegation | |
| Mr. Fred Warner—United Kingdom Delegation | |
| Ambassador Warren R. Austin—United States Delegation | |
| Mr. Hayden Raynor—United States Delegation |
The above were present this morning at a breakfast given by Mr. Hector McNeil for the purpose of discussing further the strategy to be employed in handling the defeat of the Soviet resolution and the presentation of our substitute therefor. The same cordial atmosphere and desire to cooperate on the part of all, with the possible exception of Padilla Nervo (Mexico), was in evidence as was the case at the dinner on Monday night (described in US/A/C.1/1661, November 8[7]1).
Mr. McNeil opened the conversation by inquiring if anyone present had any further suggestions to make on the text of the proposed joint US–UK resolution. Ambassador Santa Cruz of Chile stated that he felt there should be a provision covering the promotion of means to raise the standard of living and the well-being of the inhabitants of the world. He indicated that language such as contained in Article 55 of the Charter would suffice. Dr. Malik of Lebanon and others immediately seconded this suggestion and Ambassador Austin stated that this was certainly one of the essentials of peace and should be included in the resolution. There was no dissent to the idea of the inclusion of [Page 127] such a provision. (Later in the day I showed Ambassador Santa Cruz the text on this point which had been worked out by the international drafting group. He first inquired why we had not used the words “Well-being of the inhabitants”. I said I was certain no one had any objection to using these words but we had thought that the simple formulation we had drafted would be better understood by the common people. He expressed concurrence with the wording used.)
Mr. Paul Martin of Canada raised the question of using the expression “the basic principles”. He argued that the expression “basic principles” was more accurate. Dr. Malik and Santa Cruz nodded agreement to these comments. He also argued against the inclusion of the expression “that disregard of these principles is primarily responsible for the continuance of international tension”. He said this was not the cause of tension but that the real cause was the existence in the world of Communism. He suggested further that the paragraph should end after the words “enduring peace” in the third line of the paragraph. Ambassador Austin, in particular, and others challenged the arguments made by Mr. Martin. After considerable discussion it was agreed to drop the word “the” before “basic principles” but to retain the balance of the paragraph unchanged. During this discussion Freitas-Valle of Brazil questioned whether the Charter was a pact of peace but was immediately challenged on this point by Ambassador Austin and others and Freitas-Valle did not press the matter.
Paul Martin also raised the idea of inserting the provision contained in the earlier Canadian draft calling for the renunciation of all theories that war is inevitable. Mr. Raynor explained how we had attempted to work this into the draft but found that it was difficult to express and did not seem to fit into the balance of the text. Mr. Paul Martin did not press the point.
There was considerable discussion on the atomic energy paragraphs of the resolution and finally general agreement on the wording now included in the revised text, which was formulated by Sir B. N. Rau of India. The feeling was that the wording about sharing sovereignty as well as the wording in the French-Canadian resolution in the Ad Hoc Committee was too negative. There was also agreement that the new wording supplemented the French-Canadian draft and was not inconsistent with it. Dr. Arce of Argentina was very pleased with this result as he stated several times that the existing wording was difficult, for his government to accept.
There was also considerable discussion of appropriate wording for the paragraph on human rights. Mr. McNeil suggested, and there was general concurrence, that the drafting group should attempt to merge the phraseology read by Mr. Raynor beginning “to promote, in recognition [Page 128] of the dignity and worth of the individual human person . .” with Mr. Paul Martin’s language which reads as follows: “to accord full freedom for the peaceful expression of political opposition; to grant the religious organizations independence of the state and supremacy in their own sphere”. Malik and Santa Cruz both suggested that the word “individual” was not necessary to modify the expression “human person”.
On several occasions Mr. Freitas-Valle of Brazil and Dr. Arce of the Argentine argued that there should be a provision in the resolution indicating that the state was a servant of the people, or in some way pointing out that the individual is above the state. There was no decision one way or the other as to whether or not such a provision should be included.
Ambassador Austin reviewed the ten important aspects of the problem of essentials of peace which we feel it is important be developed in detail in one or more speeches during the debate. It was suggested that different representatives present might volunteer to give special attention to one or another of these subjects. It was made quite clear that, of course, every state would wish to include in its own statement what was in its heart but that in addition to such statements certain states might be willing to undertake the additional responsibility of developing one of these points. Denmark and Norway indicated a willingness to speak on point 1. Brazil indicated that it would do so or find another Latin American state to do so with respect to the Rio treaty aspect of point 1. Denmark indicated it would cover point 2. Dr. Malik of Lebanon stated that he would take the lead on point 3. Santa Cruz had left the meeting but Dr. Malik, who had been sitting next to him, said he felt certain Santa Cruz would like to talk on point 4 (later in the day Santa Cruz indicated to me that he would do so). Mr. McNeil also stated that the United Kingdom would devote considerable attention to this point. Denmark and the UK indicated they would refer to point 5. On point 6 Dr. Arce indicated reluctance to speak on the subject of the veto but no one seemed to take this remark of his very seriously. Ambassador Austin stated that he would have considerable to say about point 7. Observations were made that probably China and Yugoslavia would likewise contribute on this point. No one volunteered on point 8. Zafrulla Khan indicated that he intended to say considerable about the threats to small states and on the integrity of small states (point 9). On point 10 the UK, French and Indian representatives said they would all have something to say.
During this discussion van Langenhove of Belgium said he intended to make two main points in his statement: (1) that the dispute was not simply a dispute between the Big Powers but a matter in which [Page 129] all independent sovereign states were interested; and (2) that there cannot be genuine and sincere cooperation under the principles of the Charter as long as the blackout of information, etc., continues.
There was strong desire expressed that the presentation of points in the debate be coordinated and that the order of speaking, etc., likewise be coordinated and Mr. Raynor was again requested to act as “whip” in this connection.
As to the order of speaking, Belgium, Denmark and Canada expressed a desire to speak early. France expressed a preference for speaking on Saturday. Brazil indicated no hurry. (Later in the day Denmark expressed a desire to me to speak after France.) Belgium indicated a desire to speak early but on the second day of the debate rather than the first. The Canadians indicated that while Paul Martin wanted to speak early that their staff would like to have the week-end to prepare the statement which they intended to make a comprehensive one. Santa Cruz also indicated during the day that he would like the week-end to work on his statement. Iceland also said during the day they were seriously considering a statement and would, of course, want the week-end to work on it. New Zealand confirmed during the day a desire to make a very strong statement and to make it early. Mr. McNeil concurred with the idea of the UK not speaking at the beginning of the debate. It is not yet clear, however, how long Mr. McNeil is willing to wait before making his statement.
During the day the Canadians raised with us again the question of including in the resolution at a minimum, in connection with freedom of religion, the expression “without interference by the state”. After several discussions with Arnold Smith,2 in the final one of which it was explained to him that the inclusion of such a statement would cost us the votes of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen at least, Arnold Smith agreed to recommend that this matter be dropped.