310.2/8–2150: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
priority
[Received August 21—7:23 p. m.]
339. At consultation of SC members called by Malik at Lake Success, he opened by stating that the Soviet Union without changing its attitude toward the 25 June resolution felt that it was possible for the SC to agree on the simultaneous seating of the SK and NK authorities. He recalled consultation of August 17 when other delegates had spoken on the timing but not on the substance of the Soviet proposal. Hence, he had called for this informal exchange of views to receive any comments on substance. In the discussion that followed Sunde (Norway) was only member to speak except for one brief comment by Quevedo (Ecuador). After an exchange of about 40 minutes Malik suggested the following communiqué:
“An informal exchange of views of SC members took place on August 21 on the question of hearing in the SC, representatives of NK and SK. No agreement was reached on this question.”
To summarize discussion, Sunde opened by recalling last consultation in which USSR maintained its position but asked all the others to concede. He thought it was clear why SC could not ask NK’s to sit. During the police action the SC could properly hear only from the victim but during the final stage the question of seating the NK’s would be a different one. Malik again spoke of the Soviet position based on the real fact that without both parties the case cannot be settled either now or in the future. He therefore restated his proposal that without further discussion of the 25 June resolution we invite the representative of SK and since both are needed for the peaceful settlement of the case we also make a decision on an invitation to the NK’s. He referred to Sunde’s comment that only during the pendency of the police action were the NK’s not to be asked. There were no precedents in the charter for hearing only the victim and he referred to the practice of the Palestine and Kashmir cases. He stressed that [Page 630] at all stages both parties are needed and concluded that if Sunde reflected the majority of the Council without prejudice to the rights of the NK’s it seemed to him there was no purpose in continuing the exchange.
Sunde replied that a great number of SC members had debated this and these members had given authoritative interpretation to the 25 June resolution to the effect that a standing invitation has been issued to the representative of SK. Two presidents of the SC have acted on this invitation by stating that they invited the SK representative to the table and not using the phrase “unless there is objection”. Sunde reminded Malik that he was asking the Council to reverse this decision. He felt that on this substantive question nine members of the SC endorsed the action of the two presidents. Malik attempted to draw out Sunde asking for clarification as to whether those nine members while insisting on an invitation to the SK’s would take a decision on seating the NK authorities since, as he put it, “any lack of clear understanding would harm our business.” When the other members remained silent Malik then noted the facts that Sunde did not deem it possible to take a decision on seating the NK’s and therefore the exchange of views was complete. There was then discussion of the communiqué set out above and Sunde added in conclusion that he thought ten members of the SC were agreed on the formal point that the SK representative had been invited to the table.