772.00/3–2852: Telegram

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

secret priority

652. Be Tunisia—from Gross. On Balluseck’s initiative as President SC, Ross and I met with him, Jebb and Hoppenot this morning as follows:

Balluseck reported Bokhari promise to inform him immediately any decision this morning. Bokhari’s attitude reported as not wanting any more than necessary to agitate matter but rather to bring parties together. There were indications from Dutch Embassy, Paris that Tunisian Ministers recently there were afraid Arab-Asian group might go too far in presenting case.

In light of this morning’s report that new Prime Minister had been named Hoppenot and Lacoste appeared to be greatly relieved and banking heavily on “new situation”. They estimated situation next two or three days will be better than it has been or may be thereafter; therefore, they are inclined not to resist calling of SC meeting on Monday1 if requested by Arab-Asians. They reserved judgment, however, as to whether they would wish council, if meeting called on Monday, to deal immediately with question of inclusion on agenda and “get it over with”. Alternatively, motion for simple adjournment of meeting, which is not debatable (rule 33), might be made immediately following presentation of Arab-Asian request, presumably by Bokhari. I indicated we would probably be inclined to follow French tactical lead on this point. It was agreed that consideration should be given to interpretation Art. 35 in event non-member of SC, e.g. Indonesia, or entire Arab-Asian group, should request inclusion of item and opportunity to be heard on inclusion question.

If and when question of inclusion arises Hoppenot indicated he would hope to speak first and briefly, indicating Bey responsible authority had appointed new Prime Minister, negotiations in process of resumption, and therefore no question for Council to consider. Although he thought there might have been possibility his abstaining on question of inclusion, Hoppenot now felt in light new development he would almost certainly be instructed vote against.

[Page 703]

Jebb indicated that under his present instructions if four other members were against inclusion UK would abstain or vote against. If there were not four others against, Jebb said he might have to vote for inclusion; he thought probably, however, he would be instructed to abstain.

Balluseck indicated that under no circumstances would he vote for inclusion. He was not clear whether he would be instructed to abstain or vote against.

There was agreement that indications definitely are that Brazil, Chile, China, Pakistan, Turkey and USSR would vote for inclusion, with UK, France and Netherlands against or abstaining, and Greece and US uncertain. I indicated we had not yet received instructions as to whether we would vote for or abstain. On assumption item included on agenda, Jebb indicated very strong opposition to seating all members if Arab-Asian group at table and equally strong opposition to inviting Tunisian reps. Balluseck, and of course Fr, seemed to share Jebb’s views. Lacoste indicated, perhaps half facetiously, that reps of new Tunisian Govt might be invited to come. Jebb, and somewhat less wholeheartedly Balluseck, seemed to share Fr view on issue of competence. I indicated that I was without instructions on these points, pointing out, however, that precedents as in Iranian case indicated that inclusion on agenda did not prejudice issue of competence.

If question arises under Pak SC presidency, should Pak rep disqualify himself under rule 20 of SC rules of procedure?

Jebb inclined to view if Pak lodged complaint, he should step down.

Austin
  1. Mar. 31.