795.00/1–2051: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
1038. Korea. At meeting in Jebb’s office this morning with the French, Canadian and Australian delegates, the following positions were stated with respect to co-sponsoring the resolution contained urtel 640.1 French delegation has no instructions; it may receive instructions later today but understand they will not receive definite instructions with regard to sponsorship until Chauvel’s return on Monday.2 French delegation does not expect to be in position to co-sponsor the present text since they place great emphasis on the proposed changes in the last paragraph which were rejected by the Department. If the USDel must introduce text today, French cannot co-sponsor.
Canadian delegation does not have instructions authorizing it to co-sponsor present text. They believe their Prime Minister will be less ready to act as sponsor in view of Department’s rejection of changes in last paragraph. If the US must go ahead today, they cannot join us.
UKDel does not agree with present text of resolution and cannot sponsor it. British Government remains of the view that the first step of finding of aggression should be taken now and that no decision should be made re other matters until opportunity for full consultation. They prefer present text to original US text. UKDel indicated it might not be able to support original version.
Australian delegation indicated it had instructions authorizing it to co-sponsor latest draft.
We indicated we felt we must go ahead today and are prepared to go ahead with those delegations who are willing to join us; opportunity [Page 114] remains open for other delegations to join later if they so desire. If necessary, we would table a resolution alone.
We discussed question of possible amendments. UK and French delegates reserve their right to introduce or support amendments to this text. Canadian delegation indicated that the amendments which they had proposed to us earlier were considered by them matters of policy and were not put forward in any way for the purpose of obtaining votes. They would probably not desire to put forward any amendments but this was not perfectly clear. Riddell thought Pearson might be satisfied to explain his policy in a statement.