UNP Files, Acc No. 71A5255, Lot 58 D 224
The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Nash) to the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson)
Dear Jack: The State–Defense Working Group on United Nations Collective Measures recently considered a position paper (SD/A/C.1/379/Rev. 1),1 prepared in the Department of State, on the subject of the report of the Collective Measures Committee. This office is in general accord with the Recommendations contained in the position paper.
I would like to leave with you, before departing for Paris,2 my comments on the proposed resolution attached to the position paper as Annex A. The resolution is well drawn and provides for thorough action on the Report by the General Assembly. I am concerned, however, with operative paragraph 6. Its inclusion is not supported by the Recommendations of the position paper, nor by the Conclusions of the Report adopted by the CMC and being recommended for adoption by the General Assembly. Moreover, it would be dangerous without the U.S. Government first having considered the necessity and advisability for such a move, to leave by implication to national [Page 683]interpretation and initiative the questions of how and to what extent nations can make a valuable contribution to the collective security system, beyond the very real and substantial contribution they are now making. The subject of relationships with regional defense arrangements is one with which the Department of Defense is directly and fundamentally concerned, and any proposal dealing with this question in the Sixth Session should be submitted as a matter of urgency to the Department of Defense for comment.
Paragraph 6 also would tend to divert attention from the importance of the action portion of Section B of the Conclusions, entitled “Further action by States.” As we know from past experience in the preparation of the Report, we very likely will encounter the opposition of both the United Kingdom and French delegations on this point, at a time when we should make every effort to avoid differences and consolidate the gains made to date by the earliest adoption of the Conclusions, in order to demonstrate the solidarity and unanimity of the States which are supporting the principle of collective action.
The principal emphasis in the General Assembly, in my opinion, should be placed on Section C of the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution and Section B of the Conclusions of the Report: the maintenance by members of armed forces and other resources available for United Nations use. Korea has demonstrated a serious deficiency in troop and logistical support from other than the major non-communist powers, and, in instances, a deficiency in a sense of obligation to participate in such UN action as undertaken in Korea. It would be my recommendation to stimulate further efforts by UN Members in implementation of both paragraphs 7 and 8 of the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution.
It has been suggested that operative paragraph 8, requesting the Secretary-General to appoint the members of the Panel of Military Experts, be deleted on the grounds that it is suggestive of indirect censure of the Secretary-General for not having made these appointments earlier. It is entirely possible that the Secretary-General has withheld making the appointments pending the approval of the CMC Report, for which there would appear to be valid reason. At any rate, it might be the more charitable and less persistent position to delete this paragraph of inducement, particularly in light of the virtual blanket adoption by the members of the CMC of most of the U.S. views.
The Defense Department representatives on the WGCMC have registered with me their comments on other sections of the draft position paper. Their comments are set forth in the enclosure hereto,3 and are directed toward more precise expression in the position paper.
- Ante, p. 668.↩
- During November, Nash served as an Adviser on the United States Delegation to the Sixth Session of the General Assembly at Paris. In this capacity, he participated in the development of the U.S. position in discussions with officials of the United Kingdom, France, and other nations resulting in an agreed draft resolution for presentation to the General Assembly. Regarding General Assembly action on this matter, see editorial note, infra.↩
- Not printed.↩