795.00/7–2950: Telegram
The United States Acting Representative at the United Nations (Gross) to the Secretary of State
niact
[Received July 29—4:51 p. m.]
103. Re draft resolution including condemnation of North Korean authorities telephoned by Wainhouse,1 we have following comments and questions:
- 1.
- It is our feeling that the third paragraph of the resolution would
be interpreted by other members of the SC as committing them in
advance to use their armed forces to prevent spread of conflict to
areas other than Korea, and particularly to Formosa, and therefore
would be quite unacceptable to them. If this meaning is not intended
by Department, we feel third and fourth paragraphs are essentially
duplications of the same thought. Either the third should be dropped
completely or it should be merged in fourth paragraph. We suggest
the following:
“Calls upon all states to refrain from action which might lead to the spreading of the Korean conflict to other areas and thereby further endanger international peace and security.”
- 2.
- We should like to clarify the meaning of the words “calls upon”. If this is intended as an order, it will make it extremely difficult in our view to obtain support. From the point of view of India and UK, for example, if they support an order to the Communist Chinese to refrain from attacking Formosa, they will then be morally committed to support a decision of the SC to take military action in case of such an attack. We doubt very much that many members of the SC will be prepared to commit themselves to this step at the present time. On [Page 496] the other hand, it might well be possible to gain support for these paragraphs if we make it clear that the words “calk upon” should be considered recommendations rather than orders.
- 3.
- Department does not state whether it desires that this resolution be approved at Monday’s meeting.2 In our view this would be most difficult to accomplish in view of the short time available and in view of the other irons we have in the fire for Monday’s meeting. In any case, it is our opinion that it would be preferable, not to approve a resolution along these lines at Monday’s meeting but to save it until the Russians return to the Council. A debate on a resolution of this nature in which the Russians are forced to take part will give us a fine opportunity to put the Russians on the spot.
A veto by them of a resolution along these lines would be enormously valuable and would place upon the Russians full responsibility for the continuation of the conflict.
Our suggestion would be that the resolution might be tabled late Monday so that it would have priority of consideration over any substantive proposal which Malik introduces and would enable us to hold the initiative, rather than being forced on the defensive by a Russian proposal.
Please advise urgently.