The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
Gadel 29. Re tactics for dealing with proposed declaration introduced by Vishinsky, Dept tentative conclusions substantially parallel those GADel staff in doc US/A/C.1/1971, except that we do not favor any suggestions along the lines of subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Recommendation 3. Dept. believes wld be unwise seek embody affirmative declaration or appeal in preamble Uniting for Peace Res and highly unlikely accomplish purpose of sweetening latter res for Fr and Indians. This possibility shld not be raised in consultations other Dels.
Dept does not consider preliminary views other Dels so far reported sufficiently definitive to warrant conclusions re specific positions they will take when item comes up for active consideration. Dept agrees that further, more intensive consultations shld be undertaken and suggests fol points be stressed:
- Declaration contains nothing essentially new. All points conclusively dealt with by previous sessions: para 1 in 1947; para 2 in all previous sessions; para 3a in 1949 and 3b in 1948.
- Therefore, no need repeat this session previous exhaustive debates merits various points. To extent that para 2 by incorporating part Stockholm Peace Appeal introduces “new” aspect atomic energy control, this can be handled in connection consideration that item.
- Thus in US view Declaration shld be voted down by largest possible majority and no effort be made to amend it.
- In our present view Essentials of Peace Res of last session and US proposals for Uniting for Peace provide sufficient “substitute” and [Page 404]counter res shld not foe necessary. Delegation shld discourage counter resolution, but shld of course consider and report any specific suggestions made by other Delegations.
- In light of foregoing, Dept considers the Del shld exert every effort to bring about summary rejection of Soviet Declaration.1
- Following receipt of this instruction, the delegation working group determined as a matter of urgency to seek the considered views of other delegates. In a revised working paper it was stated that “We should not suggest the need for a substitute resolution meeting the Soviet resolution point-for-point; delegations which do suggest this should be invited to draft something.” The idea of working a broad statement of peace goals into the preamble of the Uniting for Peace resolution was rejected, as the specific goals in the latter would be disappointingly modest as a means of carrying forward “grandiose themes” in the preamble. A revised list, of foreign delegation reactions was attached, reflecting little change from the list printed on p. 402. (U.S. Delegation working paper, IO Files, Doc. US/A/C.1/1971/Rev. 1, October 5, 1950)↩