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

320/11–750: Telegram

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

confidential

New York, November 7, 1950—12:18 a. m.

Delga 244. Re Delgas 212, November 1 and 220 November 2. Another meeting this afternoon¹ at which Australia was also represented group considered first Cuban amendments Yugoslav proposal (A/C.1/609).² Conclusion reached that these amendments did not cure basic difficulties of Yugoslav proposal since they did not eliminate provision for automatic cease-fire. In addition, Cuban amendment created new difficulties. It contemplates that peace observation commission could go to area of tension on own motion or at request SYG. This would constitute a radical revision in Uniting for Peace resolution. There was also some question whether function conferred on Peace Observation Commission by Cuban amendment did not extend original terms of reference of commission.

To placate Cuba, decided, ad referendum, add new provision (c) to suggested substitute (Delgas 212 and 220) along following lines:

“c. In such notification, state whether it will receive immediately in its territory and cooperate with the Peace Observation Commission, or a subcommission or observers designated by the commission.”

It was decided that Sir Frank Soskice should inform Kardelj (Yugoslavia) that Yugoslav proposal, even with Cuban amendments, still entirely unacceptable. We prepared adopt Cuban idea in form indicated and hoped Yugoslavia could accept our suggestions and introduce substitute which we could support.³ If Yugoslavia refused, group concluded that no substitute would be introduced since no one felt sufficiently enthusiastic about agreed substitute to wish to sponsor. In that case, feeling was that countries represented might simply vote against Yugoslav proposal.

Re Soviet definition of aggression, feeling was to vote it down without much debate.⁴ It was recognized, however, that some countries which in past favored definition of aggression, particularly some Latin American States, might not be willing dismiss proposal out of hand, and that it might prove necessary to refer feasibility and desirability of definition of aggression to some group like the Interim Committee for study.

Austin

1. November 6.
2. For text, see GA (V), Annexes, vol. ii, fascicule 72, p. 5.
3. This refers to the text on p. 428.
4. At the First Committee meeting on November 6, the Soviet delegate (Zarubin) introduced a draft resolution which presumed to attempt a comprehensive definition of aggression (GA (V), First Committee, pp. 255 ff.); for text, see GA (V), Annexes, vol. ii, fascicule 72, p. 4.