Office of the Historian

320/11–2651: Telegram

The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State, at Rome1

secret   priority
Paris, November 26, 1951—11 p. m.

Delga 371. For the Secretary from Jessup. Confirming telephone conversations with Battle,2 Iraq, Pak and Syria this morning introduced res to establish subcomite consisting of Fr, USSR, US, UK with Pres GA as chairman. Task of subcomite was described as being attempt to report back to com I an agreed proposal presumably for the disarmament commission and its terms of ref. This proposal followed anticipated gen suggestion by India for subcomite to study tripartite res and Soviet amendments.3 We had detected gen feeling in com that [Page 594] subcomite of some kind shld be appointed, and we feared one containing neutrals who might bring out majority or substantial minority report watering down tri res. Proposal to have big four constitute subcomite seemed to us to avoid this danger. In essence it constitutes suggestion that three powers shld be willing to sit down with Sov Union to discuss proposals. Since willingness to do this has been our standard line, we felt we cld not oppose it. In consultation over lunch with staff, we felt that if we wld eventually participate in such a subcomite it was much better to get benefit of saying so at the outset instead of giving grudging acquiescence later. Hickerson on phone did not object to this position4 and we understood Perkins reacted similarly. Lloyd UK and French approved. Greatly regret your msg5 did not reach me until after I had spoken in com. In indicating continued willingness to participate in discussions with Sov Union as seemed to be basic idea of Iraqi, Pak and Syrian res I referred to fact that in deputies mtg this spring we had proposed as item CFM agenda disarmament proposals to be proposed by the four powers. I qualified acceptance of res as tabled pending further study particularly on terms of ref of subcomite. Apparently the cautions I introduced in my statement led many to feel we had rejected Iraqi, Pak, Syrian res.

My guess is com will continue several days in gen debate and then have some detailed debate probably tomorrow UK plans to give tri agreed answers to six questions proposed by Vyshinsky.6 1 will follow later possibly Thurs7 or Fri with detailed analysis Sov amendments to original tri disarmament res. Attitude of Sovs toward subcomite proposal still undisclosed. I still feel that this exercise while probably time consuming will not be harmful and that the failure to reach agreement in the subcomite if properly handled will gain support for original tri res about which many smaller countries now seem to have doubts on ground that unless Sovs agree adoption any res is futile. On this point, I stressed necessity continuing UN efforts.

Sent Rome 250, repeated info Department Delga 371 for Hickerson. [Jessup.]

Austin
  1. The Secretary of State had departed from Paris for Rome on November 23 in order to participate in the Eighth Session of the North Atlantic Council.↩
  2. Conversations not identified.↩
  3. For text of the tripartite resolution (A/C.1/667), see p. 584. For the Soviet amendments, A/C.1/668, see Yearbook of the United Nations, 1951, pp. 163–164.↩
  4. Hickerson’s memorandum of telephone conversation with Jessup on November 26 is not printed (320.1/11–2651).↩
  5. Not identified.↩
  6. In his address of November 24, Soviet Representative Vyshinsky asked six questions regarding the tripartite proposals; for the summary record of his remarks, see GA (VI), First Committee, pp. 23–25. In a statement of November 28, British Representative Lloyd responded to the questions; for the summary record of his remarks, see ibid., pp. 40–41.↩
  7. November 29.↩