Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

320/9–2950: Telegram

The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State

secret   priority

New York, September 29, 1950—3:24 p. m.

Delga 51. For Sandifer from Bancroft. There follows explanation of latest text resolution Uniting for Peace transmitted in Delga 47, September 28.¹

1. We preferred first 2 paragraphs of preamble to revision set forth Gadel 11 on ground that express finding in paragraph 2 was important as basis for substantive provisions of resolution. Further, we thought affirmation in Department’s revision difficult to reconcile with action proposed.

2. Fifth paragraph in preamble inserted because it was deleted from paragraph 8 as revised.

3. Paragraph 1 does not include reference to veto or lack of unanimity for tactical reasons. We recognize, however, that other dels may wish to reinsert it and if so we propose agree.

4. We revised latter part of paragraph 1 in order to meet British point that this resolution not encourage GA majority to call emergency sessions where there is disagreement in SC. Proposed revisions in rules of procedure provided for in paragraph 2 will make it substantively clear that majority of UN members can in fact call emergency special session.

5. We recognize that under present language last sentence paragraph 1 constitutional question under article 20 may be raised. We believe however that legal basis for our text is valid and legal argument persuasive. Thus far no del has seriously disagreed. Furthermore, we regard it as extremely important part of paragraph that emergency sessions be called when any 7 members of SC wish to, without necessity of obtaining vote in SC and consequent potential delays because of assertion of veto. There appears no other method of achieving this result. We believe that in light of language of article 20 that GA shall meet in special session as occasion may require, GA is authorized to decide in advance that it will so meet when SC fails to act in case of aggression or breach of peace and any 7 members SC deem it necessary.

6. Revision of paragraph 8 self-explanatory. Significant change lies in substitution of word “maintain” for word “designate”.

7. Bracketed language in paragraph 9 inserted merely as indication that we did not have any fixed views on method of appointment military adviser and that we were considering possibility of more than one military adviser.

We propose to start intensive consultations with other dels immediately on basis text Delga 47 unless Department has further suggestions to make.

[Bancroft]

Austin

1. Not printed. This draft (Doc. US/A/C.1/1890/Rev. 3, September 28) effected changes in the preambular paragraphs and in numbered paragraph 8 which are reflected in the final October 7 draft (see editorial note, p. 359). The remainder of the (September 28) draft was substantially as appears in the September 25 draft (see p. 340).