320.2 AB/8–2751

Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson) to Mr. Lucius D. Battle, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State


Subject: My Memorandum of August 27 for the Secretary on Progress under Uniting for Peace Resolution

On August 27 UNA prepared a memorandum, with attachments,1 in response to the Secretary’s suggestion that we give him material on the basis of which he might discuss with Mr. Morrison, the principal problems arising in connection with the implementation of the Uniting for Peace resolution.

Since sending to the Secretary the memorandum of August 27, one important development has taken place of which the Secretary should be apprised before talking to Mr. Morrison. On September 6 an agreement was reached in the drafting group of the Military Measures Subcommittee of the Collective Measures Committee on a text relating to collective self-defense and regional arrangements. The drafting group included representatives of both the United States and the United Kingdom. A copy of the agreed text is attached hereto as Tab A.2

This text makes two important points:

First, that “collective self-defense and regional arrangements or agencies constitute an important aspect of the universal collective security system of the United Nations”.

[Page 666]

Second, that “there should be a mutually supporting relationship between the activities of [collective self-defense and regional]3 arrangements or agencies and collective measures taken by the United Nations”.

The agreed text is constructive and probably is as far as it will be possible to go at this time in emphasizing the crucial importance of clarifying relationships between self-defense and regional arrangements and the United Nations.

Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that this text falls far short of the United States position on this matter. For example, the United States position contemplates that regional organizations will seek to conduct their operations under the aegis of the United Nations, which would state the mission of the United Nations forces. Likewise, the United States position would have permitted recommendations by the Collective Measures Committee concerning the nature of the assistance—including bases and other facilities which might be furnished by regional organizations to an executive military authority designated by the United Nations in the event of hostilities. Therefore, the existence of this agreed text does not lessen the necessity of an approach to the British Foreign Minister concerning implementation of the United Nations resolution as recommended in the August 27 memorandum.4

  1. See footnote 1, p. 659.
  2. Not printed.
  3. Brackets in the source text.
  4. No record of an Acheson–Morrison conversation on this subject has been found in the Department of State files.