Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

IO Files: US/A/M(Chr)/123

Minutes of the Twenty-ninth Meeting of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly, New York, November 12, 1949, 9 a. m.

New York, November 12, 1949, 9 a.m.

secret

[Here follow a list of persons (37) present and discussion of various matters.]

2. Substitute Resolution for Soviet “Peace Pact Proposal” (US/A/C.1/1586/Rev. 2¹)

Mr. Noyes recalled that at the last meeting of the Delegation it had been agreed that when the text of our substitute resolution was finalized it would be resubmitted to the Delegation. Substantially the final text was contained in the document before the delegation, although there were still several suggestions which had not been incorporated. It was now expected that Committee 1 would take up this item Monday, November 14.

Mr. Noyes asked that the Delegation accept the resolution in its present text, leaving the staff free to make minor changes as might be necessary. Ambassador Austin asked if there were any objections.

Mr. Dreier said that Padilla Nervo (Mexico) would feel much happier about the resolution if it included a provision calling upon states to settle their disputes by peaceful means, although he would not insist upon this point. Mr. Noyes indicated that we were prepared to recommend such an addition, provided that the French and British agreed. This could be done by adding to the third from last paragraph a clause along the following line: “to settle their international disputes by peaceful means and to cooperate.…” Mr. Hickerson observed that if much more were added the resolution would include the whole Charter and considered that this point was already covered implicitly. Ambassador Austin noted that we had encountered this same problem many times; he believed it was part of the cost of consultations to be forced into the addition of unnecessary provisions of this sort. Mr. Notter indicated that Padilla Nervo’s support of our substitute resolution was not contingent upon addition of this provision. Ambassador Austin pointed out, however, that Arce’s substitute resolution had covered this point, and emphasized that it was important to head off amendments. If we received 100% support from Padilla Nervo, it would help satisfy Arce who would probably not submit his text. Mr. Cohen² saw nothing in the suggested provision which would not be helpful to us. He felt that, even though this point was covered in the Charter, there was some benefit in pointing out that restraint from the use of force has as its coordinate the settlement of disputes by peaceful means. Ambassador Jessup noted that this was perhaps one of those cases where “it goes without saying but it goes better with saying.”

Mr. Notter called the attention of the Delegation to the improvements in the last paragraph which had been suggested by Mr. Compton³ and also noted the improved standards of living and human rights provisions, inspired by Chile and Lebanon.

Senator Cooper⁴ referred to the penultimate paragraph and suggested that the phrase “international regulation of conventional armaments” was not quite clear. Conventional armaments did not necessarily include armed forces, nor did the idea of regulation cover reduction. Perhaps the phrase might be expanded to read “international regulation and reduction of conventional armaments and armed forces.” Mr. Hickerson thought that if the other delegations agreed, this would be a helpful and clarifying change. Mr. Cohen considered that the use of the word “reduction” might cause some difficulties unless there were also used some qualifying adjective making clear that the intention was overall and not individual reduction. We certainly should avoid any suggestion of unilateral reduction. Mr. Noyes pointed out that this phrase had previously been used by the United Nations to cover these ideas.

Mr. Cabot⁵ referred to certain remarks made by the former Uruguayan Foreign Minister regarding the relationship between peace and democracy. Perhaps something to cover this idea might be added to the human rights clause of the substitute resolution. Mr. Notter pointed out that this was an action type of resolution and it had been generally agreed, for that reason, that it should not include ideological matters. We did not wish to include anything which, on ideological grounds, the Soviets could not vote for. In his view this precluded inclusion of Mr. Cabot’s suggestion.

Mr. Raynor opposed the use of the word “reduction” in the armaments clause for the same reasons which Mr. Cohen had advanced. He pointed out that certain Western European states were now increasing their armaments. Ambassador Austin said he, too, experienced the same sense of caution on this point as Messrs. Cohen and Raynor. Mrs. Roosevelt agreed, observing that there were states which were obliged now to increase their armaments in order to get a balance, and that it would be very bad to have a resolution which might be interpreted to preclude such action. She also cautioned the Delegation about the use of the word “democratic” in the resolution and pointed out that the Soviets interpreted it in quite a different sense than we did. This would simply bring about endless wrangle on interpretation. Ambassador Austin agreed.

Mr. Noyes considered that there was one advantage to the use of the word “reduction.” It might avoid facing a Russian proposal to add the word, since it had been included in several other resolutions. He suggested that this point might be decided after the staff had reviewed previous resolutions on disarmament. If this phrase were a firm formula in past resolutions, there was no reason to duck its use in this case. Ambassador Austin thought the original phrase was “possible reduction,” and the idea of “effective” carried this thought. Senator Cooper said he had raised the point at the suggestion of the military advisers; he liked the phrase “effective international reduction and regulation.” He thought the matter should be considered since otherwise we might run up against this proposal by some other delegations. Ambassador Austin believed we should not change this part of the text. Mr. Hickerson suggested that decision be deferred until the staff could study previous resolutions on armaments, bringing the matter back for final clearance. Ambassador Austin expressed willingness to follow this suggestion if the necessary time was available. Senator Cooper observed that “regulation” as previously used by the United Nations might imply “reduction.” Mr. Hickerson agreed that was the sense in which the word had previously been used. Mr. Notter suggested an amendment as follows: “effective international regulation to make possible the reduction of armaments and armed forces.” Ambassador Austin pointed out that we did not know that was what we wanted in this field; the “essentials of peace” did not necessarily include reduction of armaments; in the present stage of world affairs “effective regulation” was all that was wanted. Mr. Raynor noted that if the word “reduction” were used, it might give the Soviets a handle to attack us for increasing our armaments.

Mr. Cohen suggested that the United States should not raise this point but should give discretion to Ambassador Austin to do so if it proved necessary in the course of negotiations. If it were opened up, he wondered about the deletion of the word “conventional” and the addition at the end of the clause “in the interests of peace.” Mr. Compton thought the resolution was at the point where no further changes should be made and it should be left in the hands of Ambassador Austin. Mr. Hickerson and Ambassador Austin concurred in the view that this provision should not be changed at this time. The former called attention, however, to the fact that the Soviet resolution had referred to the heavy burden of armaments on the peoples of the world, and noted that many Americans talked a great deal about this problem. He did not see how we could evade reference to the ultimate aim of the United Nations to regulate and reduce armaments, particularly since we referred to the complete abolition of atomic weapons. Mr. Cohen agreed that there was no question regarding the ultimate aim in this case, but use of the word “reduction” might handicap us propaganda-wise on the ground that we were engaged at the present in building up armaments, and could not help but continue doing this in the near future. Our atomic program, on the other hand, was clearer in the public mind. Mr. Notter observed that the phrase used in the resolution had been coined several years ago and was intended to cover the actual conditions in this field. In his view the word “regulation” inherently meant balance—that some nations would not be so weak as to invite attack, and others so strong as to start it. The word “armaments” also included armed forces.

Ambassador Austin then asked whether the Delegation objected to leaving this provision in its present text. It was agreed this should be done.

Referring to the Mexican proposal, Mr. Noyes suggested that this paragraph might be altered along the following lines: “Calls upon all nations to settle their international disputes by peaceful means and to cooperate in supporting United Nations efforts to resolve outstanding problems.” This was agreed.

The Delegation then approved the draft resolution as submitted, with the amendment regarding pacific settlement.⁶

[Here follows discussion of other subjects.]

1. US/A/C.1/1586/Rev. 2, November 10, is not printed; for the text of the resolution actually submitted by the United States and the United Kingdom at the 325th Meeting of the First Committee, November 14, and ultimately approved by the General Assembly as Resolution 290 (IV), December 1, see p. 143.
2. Benjamin V. Cohen, Alternate Member of the United States Delegation.
3. Dr. Wilson M. Compton, Alternate Member of the United States Delegation; President of the State College of Washington.
4. John Sherman Cooper, United States Senator from Kentucky; Member of the United States Delegation.
5. John M. Cabot, Adviser, United States Delegation.
6. In a memorandum of conversation of November 12, Notter stated that he and Raynor, following the Delegation meeting, obtained the agreement of Messrs. “Wolfram and Parrott, advisers to the French and (British Delegations respectively, to this amendment (IO Files).