IO Files: US/A/M (Chr)/149
Minutes of the Fourteenth Meeting of the United States Delegation, New York, October 5, 1950, 9:15 a. m.
[Here follow list of persons present (45) and discussion of a prior agenda item.]
2. Appointment of the Secretary-General
Ambassador Austin reported that he had discussed this question with both the Secretary-General and President Entezam. Both believed that the Security Council should be afforded an opportunity to [Page 135] consider this subject before the Assembly, although they did not feel formal action would be required. The Ambassador said he had suggested that he call a private meeting at the offices of the United States Mission for the purpose of informal discussion, to ascertain whether agreement could be reached. Personally, he was sure that the Russians would oppose Lie’s continuation in office. He indicated that he would follow this procedure unless the Delegation objected.
While he did not object, Mr. Dulles remarked that he did not believe it would be possible to schedule a meeting here without arousing considerable speculation as to its purposes. Mr. Bancroft inquired whether the communiqué normally issued after a private meeting would not take care of this problem. Mr. McKeever agreed. Mr. Hyde recalled that when Malik had announced his return to the Council in August the other Members had held private consultations rather than a meeting. He wondered if this could be done in this case. He had some question, however, as to whether other Members would be willing to meet outside Lake Success.
Senator Lodge asked what advantage there was in holding the meeting here rather than in a private United Nations conference room. Ambassador Austin believed that physical convenience was the primary argument. Mr. Noyes thought there was a good deal to be said for holding an official private meeting at Lake Success, both because of publicity and because the United States now held the chairmanship of the Council. A meeting at Lake Success would be in the regular routine, and no questions could be raised.
Ambassador Austin was not so confident that that would be true, but Mr. Ross agreed with Mr. Noyes. In addition to the public relations factors, he believed there was a quasi-legal problem involved since one of the purposes of consideration by the Security Council was to provide a basis for Assembly action. When the matter comes up in the General Assembly, he did not wish to see us provide any opening for charges at that time that there had been only private consultation and not Security Council action. He favored a routine approach and hoped that Assembly action could follow perhaps twenty-four hours after the Council had considered the subject. Mr. Bancroft concurred in this view.
Ambassador Austin commented that his own proposal would follow the precedent of London. Mr. Noyes said that he had been at London, and while the meeting was a private one, it had been held within United Nations facilities. Mr. Bancroft noted that there had been private meetings of the Big Five, in addition to the official Council meeting.1 He believed it was also important for the Secretariat to be present [Page 136] at this session. Ambassador Austin thought that if the Secretariat were to be included, obviously the meeting would have to be held at Lake Success.
Ambassador Austin believed that the delegation’s discussion led to the conclusion that shortly before the General Assembly took up this subject, he should call a private meeting of the Security Council at Lake Success to consider the matter. There was general agreement.
[Here follows discussion of another subject.]
- For documentation on the 1946 meetings cited here, see Foreign Relations, 1946, vol. i, pp. 141 ff.↩