Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Korea, Volume VII

330/8–750: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations

confidential

Washington, August 7, 1950—5 p. m.

120. Dept’s analysis present parliamentary situation SC re invitation reps of North and South Kor authorities fols:

1. At June 25 meeting rep of Repub of Kor was duly invited participate “during consideration of this case” by unanimous Council decision. At same meeting by vote of 1 in favor, 6 against, and 3 abstentions res inviting Gov of North Kor to state its case before SC failed to carry. At all subsequent meetings during June and July which considered agenda item “Complaint of Aggression Upon the Repub of Korea” rep of Repub of Kor was invited participate. Subsequent invitations were not separate decisions by SC but merely continuance of June 25 decision carried forward by Pres without objection by any member. Similarly, during these meetings in June and July no further motion was made to invite North Korean reps.

2. SC decision to invite reps of Repub of Kor was and is decision with continuing force and effect and remains operative, in words of original motion, “during consideration of this case”; the words “this case” referring generally to Korean situation and specifically to agenda item before Council on June 25, namely, Complaint of Aggression Upon the Repub of Kor. Decision therefore to invite reps of Repub remains in full force and effect at every subsequent meeting of Council at which that agenda item is under discussion. Decision could of course be reversed by subsequent SC decision taken by procedural majority of any 7 votes. Had objection been raised to issuance of automatic invitation by Pres during June or July, it wld have been duty of Pres put question of reversing prior decision to vote. No objection raised during this period so issue did not arise.

3. Sov del at Aug 4 meeting has now raised objection to automatic invitation pursuant to continuing decision of June 25. It is therefore privilege of Sov to move that June 25 decision shld be reversed. Unless such motion is made it is duty of Pres to issue invitation to Repub rep. To reverse June 25 decision requires direct action by SC taken by 7 vote majority.

4. As to priority of voting, it is clear that because of continuing nature of invitation to Repub reps under June 25 decision, a vote to reverse this decision shld be taken first. Once decision to invite a rep is made, practice of SC has always been at commencement of each subsequent meeting to invite participants immediately after adoption of agenda and prior commencement discussion of question. Agenda was adopted at conclusion of meeting Aug 3; therefore seating of Repub rep not called for until commencement meeting Aug 4. After vote on invitation to Repub rep it wld be appropriate for Pres submit question of invitation to North Kor reps and if he desires, participation without vote of Chi Commie under Rule 39.

Foregoing analysis sets forth what in our view is appropriate parliamentary action to be taken by any Pres of Council conforming to SC Rules of Procedure and practice. Set forth below are various hypotheses which Sov Pres may fol and suggested methods of dealing with them:

a. If Pres puts question of invitation to Repub reps in such way as to require 7 votes to confirm decision of June 25 Pres ruling shld be challenged under point of order pursuant to Rule 30 on grounds set forth above that June 25 decision is legal continuing decision until reversed by subsequent SC vote.

b. If Pres rules that June 25 decision was illegal because of absence of Sov and Chi reps that ruling itself is subject to challenge under Rule 30.

c. If Pres rules that question must be put in way requiring 7 affirmative votes to invite Repub rep because question is subject to veto, that ruling must also be challenged on ground that San Francisco Four Power Statement¹ provides expressly to contrary (Part I, Para 2) and on ground of previous SC precedents where decision to invite participants under both Art 32 of Charter and Rule 39 of Rules were taken despite negative votes of permanent members (See Czech case, S/PV 268, page 62, S/PV 272, page 11; Indonesian case, S/PV 181, page 111.)

d. If Pres rules that Part (a) of Sov draft res must be voted on prior to vote on question of reversing June 25 decision, that ruling shld also be challenged.

e. Dept does not anticipate that in light San Francisco Statement Sov will attempt exercise double veto. However, if Pres makes any ruling to effect that decision of Council is not to invite Repub rep, that ruling shld be challenged and over-ruled. In such event US rep shld state that Sov rep in his capacity as Pres is not following decisions of Council and it is therefore duty of Council to instruct SYG to provide place for rep of Repub of Korea at table and to invite him to participate in Council discussions on present agenda item.

Acheson

1. Text in Department of State Bulletin, June 10, 1945, p. 1047; for related documentation, see Foreign Relations, 1945, volume I.