320/8–1650: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
997. ReDeptel [732] August 9 proposed resolution strengthen GA against aggression present thinking working levels Foreign Office as follows:
- 1.
- Foreign Office not sure resolution on suggested lines necessary. Argues that (1) GA already has broad powers—is specific strengthening useful, (2) suggested resolution appears too much like “moral evasion” of Charter although probably legally firm, (3) problem of determining exactly when SC has “failed to exercise its primary responsibility” would be most difficult, even with Department phrase “because of the veto”.
- 2.
- Foreign Office states that it does not share French qualms about “worsening international situation” (French have been to see them several times) but does not believe it wise to make overly elaborate attempts to cope with difficulties arising from charter when “more subtle” approach might be more successful.
- 3.
- “Subtle approach” Foreign Office considering is simple amendment GA rules of procedure to allow for convening GA on 24 hours notice at request of any member UN concurred in by majority of members when crisis breaks. For example, at outbreak of aggression, member could request immediate session and “friendly nations” could be immediately lobbied to get consent. GA could then meet and pass necessary recommendations. In meantime “friendly” members SC could prevent SC putting item on SC agenda on grounds that GA already dealing with situation. Above represents tentative thinking UN and Legal Departments but has not yet been passed on by higher levels of Foreign Office. In meantime active consideration being given to US resolution but pressure business has prevented full high level consideration of matter as yet, although UN department is trying to expedite such consideration.
Comment: Foreign Office thinking on lower levels appears conditioned considerably by desire to avoid “bluntness” (Foreign Office’s word) of US approach and to avoid rushing resolution through Assembly about which there may be later doubts Foreign Office admits that its proposal to amend rules of procedure would run into such practical difficulties as lobbying quickly enough to get majority GA to agree but counters that practical difficulties would be equally great with US resolution. Also admits that move to amend rules of procedure might provoke as acrimonious a debate as US resolution. (Despite assertion they do not share French qualms they appear reluctant at prospect any more overt anti-Soviet moves than absolutely necessary.) As to form which proposed resolution amending rules of procedure might take, Foreign Office says it would be necessary to [Page 321] find out from SYG what he conceives his powers to be, referring to Lie’s report. Should be emphasized that this is preliminary British thinking only, not British reply, and US resolution has not yet received full Foreign Office consideration.
Sent Department 997, repeated Paris 249.