Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, National Security Affairs; Foreign Economic Policy, Volume I

320/12–651: Telegram

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

secret   niact

Paris, December 6, 1951—6 p. m.

Delga 533. Re Delga 529.¹ Tri Wed eve² produced strong dose UK–Fr pressures, anticipated in reftel, make apparent concessions to Sovs to demonstrate good faith.

Principal pressure was from Moch, who had just spoken to Schuman. Both felt, in response Fr public opinion, very important that disarmament debate appear produce something positive. Also important that Three Powers not appear intransigent in negotiating these vital problems with Sovs. Report of flat disagreement without evidence we attempted bridge gap likely result in at least twenty abstentions in Comite 1 vote on tri res. To indicate Three Power intention leave no stone unturned, Moch suggested subcomite cld submit neutral report to Comite 1 Monday at which time Three Powers wld request ten day recess for consultation with govts, after which subcomite cld reconvene and consider new proposals which might arise both sides and report back about Jan 1.

Lloyd felt “new proposals” shld be put forward as index tri good faith. Had felt such proposals shld be tabled subcomite, now inclined favor introducing them in Comite 1, without prior consideration in subcomite. But agreed with point stressed by Lacoste and Jessup that tri submission new proposals at Dec 10 resumption Comite 1 wld expose Three Powers justified Vishinsky charges bad faith.

Moch admitted he had no concrete changes in tri res in mind; Lloyd felt simply that we might modify res to give disarmament comite freer scope by not insisting on details of all para five principles, perhaps might also modify to incorporate substance his concept future prohibition atomic weapons.

Jessup made clear US strongly opposed any postponement, since this wld raise false hopes our friends and convince USSR we lead from weakness not strength. Also made clear we have no “new proposals” in mind which Three Powers cld offer either next week or after Moch’s proposed delay. Stressed retrogression involved in res establishing comite without terms ref. Jessup said wld consult Dept re UK and Fr views.

Lloyd, Moch and Jessup did agree that further tri discussion subcomite and Comite 1 strategy essential immed future perhaps today, (Thurs). Lloyd said he wld prepare draft for consideration.

In view of these Fr and UK attitudes, staff has been considering possible effect on GA and public opinion of tri res were revised to approximate approach developed in draft contained Gadel 145.³ Dept will recall exchange of views on this point in Delgas 191 and 192, Gadel 131, 145 and 152.⁴ Such approach might contain para along lines formulation contained Delga 529, if pressures for inclusion such formulation crystallize. Jessup and staff continue to believe something like present tri res important in order to show positive accomplishments this GA and provide clear-cut terms of ref for new comite. Moreover now that tri res has been introduced and reed support in Comite 1 debate, it wld be regarded as setback if we abandoned it for res merely establishing new comite. However, in anticipation of possible move in this direction, we wld like Dept’s guidance, since moves in subcomite or parliamentary situation in Comite 1 may develop in such way as to require quick decisions.⁵

Austin

1. Telegram Delga 529, December 6, is not printed.
2. December 5.
3. Telegram Gadel 145, November 14, is not printed.
4. None printed.
5. In telegram Gadel 365, December 6, not printed, the Department of State expressed agreement with the Delegation’s position that the basic principles of the tripartite draft resolution (A/C.1/667, p. 584) should not be compromised. The Department also agreed that postponement of the debate on regulation of armaments was inadvisable. (320/12–651)