USUN Files
The Italian Observer at the United Nations (Guidotti) to the Deputy United States Representative at the United Nations (Gross)1
Dear Ambassador Gross: I have sent to Rome the summary record of the conference held at the Quai d’Orsay on Saturday last, November 17, 1951.
Meanwhile, as I have already communicated to Congressman Vorys and to Mr. Hyde, as well as to your English and French colleagues, [Page 398] a telegramme from Rome has arrived, in reply to the one I sent to my Ministry on November 15 following Ambassador Quaroni’s conversation with the Secretary of State, expressing the view that in the present circumstances the French proposal should be accepted as the only alternative open to us.
I am now carrying out the pledge I have undertaken to represent to our common Latin-American friends the advisability of giving their full support to the French resolution.
I note that some misapprehension seems to have [been] aroused as to the attitude of the Italian Government or their Representatives here. I think the explanation lies in the fact that we were confronted with successive situations and, consequently, had to take successive positions.
May I resumé here briefly what happened. On my arrival here on November 1, I was informed of the French plan, which I communicated to my Government. Their reaction was that the plan was excellent as a procedure, provided that further consultations should take place as to what action to take if and when the application for the admission of Italy had been blocked by a fifth Russian veto. This may be described as a conditional acceptance. I communicated as much to M. Broustra, Chef de Conférences at the Quai d’Orsay.
On November 15, Ambassador Quaroni saw Mr. Acheson who intimated that he did not see the way for any further development if, as was to be expected, the proposed course of action should lead to a Russian veto in the Security Council. I immediately reported this to my Government, asking, in view of this situation, whether I could drop the reservation formerly attached to the Italian acceptance.
Such was the Italian position when, on Thursday night November 15, I had a very exhaustive conversation with Congressman Vorys, who was assisted by several other gentlemen, and I had the opportunity of stating it as clearly as I could.
On the morning of Saturday 17, M. Chauvel called Ambassador Quaroni by telephone, saying that the postponement of the debate on the French resolution in the 4th Committee would present some difficulty, and asking that a reply as to the Italian position be possibly given before 3 p. m. of the same day. There was no time to elicit a direct reply from Rome; therefore, as I hope to have made clear the other evening at the Quai d’Orsay, I asked for authority to accept the French proposal from M. Taviani, Italian Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was in Paris on that day. Having received the authorization, I communicated it to M. Chauvel at 3 p. m.
The press of circumstances was such that I did not think, at the moment, and I regret it sincerely, to make a similar communication to the United States and British Representatives. It was my impression that Ambassador Chauvel’s request was made in the name of the [Page 399] three Great Powers and that my communication would therefore be instantly circulated to the other Representatives.2
Yours most sincerely,