320/8–1650: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom
1117. Re Paris tels 799 Aug. 14, 828 Aug. 16, 988 Aug. 26, and London tel 997 Aug. 16.1 One objection against Dept’s draft res on GA emergency special session is, according to UK FonOff, great difficulty determining when SC has “failed to exercise its primary responsibility” even when phrase “because of the veto” is included. Dept believes such difficulty wld not arise. Our proposal envisages SC consideration of a Chapter VII problem followed by one or more Soviet vetoes. GA cld not, of course, make recommendations while SC exercised functions regarding problem unless SC requested GA recommendation (Article 12, UN Charter). It wld therefore be necessary for SC drop problem from agenda before GA cld recommend. We believe this procedural vote of Council to delete item from own [Page 326] agenda wld furnish clear indication of when SC, because of veto, has “failed to exercise its primary responsibility”.
SC’s removal of item from agenda is procedural decision not subject to veto. This is made entirely clear by Paras 2 and 4, Part I, 4-Power Statement at San Francisco. SC has in past operated this basis. For example, after successive Soviet vetoes were cast during summer 1947 on substantive resolutions Greek case, Council decided in procedural vote of 9–2 remove Greek question from SC agenda. View Charter, 4-Power Statement, and usage, it could not be maintained that removal item from agenda is substantive decision. If USSR shld so claim, and attempt invoke double veto, purported double veto cld not be given effect and shld be over-ridden, since obviously Para 2, Part II, 4-Power Statement does not apply to matter long since determined procedural.
Once SC has removed item from own agenda, Art 12 Charter presents no bar to GA recommendations. Even without SC removal from agenda (or SC request to GA for recommendations) GA can consider and discuss matter being dealt with by Council; the stage of recommendation alone is prohibited to Assembly under Art 12. Consequently, Dept’s proposal raises no question Charter amendment.
Fr FonOff preliminary reaction expressed view that, if Dept’s proposal presents no conflict with Art 12, proposal wld be unnecessary since objective emergency special session cld be achieved by simple change GA Rules. We disagree this conclusion for reasons set forth Deptel 1001, Aug 23 to London (933 to Paris; 180 to USUN) and in NY conversations with Fr and UK Dels Aug 21 and 28. Summary latter being sent separate tel.2
Request you transmit above views to FonOff as appropriate, in answer their inquiries reported reftels.