772.00/4–252: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Department of State
663. Re Tunisia. In considering procedure to be followed Tunisian case we are impressed by fact Asian-African group was not persuaded by Dept views (Deptel 362, March 28)1 made clear to Bokhari as reported USUN’s 656, March 29.2 In view this fact, specific problem is what position USUN should take on question of inscribing item on agenda.
USUN believes we should vote for inscription. Problem as we see it is one of fundamental policy re use of UN forum. US traditional and consistent view has been that inscription of item on agenda does not prejudge question of competence nor does it imply decision that question is ripe for consideration. As example, Formosan question is on UN agenda but we have been able consistently to postpone consideration of question.
It seems to us dangerous from point of view effective future conduct proceedings in UN to reverse our past policy and practice, since thereby issue would arise in every future case whether putting item on agenda prejudges or prejudices either competence or merits. Disadvantages obvious re cases such as Iranian oil or complaints we may in future wish to bring against Communists. Moreover, see no useful purpose served re Tunisia by reversal of consistent past practice, since we can as we have done successfully so often, argue for postponement consideration of question once it is on agenda. In our view orderly and logical course toward which Deptel 362, March 28 points would be for us to vote for inscription on agenda but move or support, as we feel majority of Council would do, postponement of consideration.
We are concerned by politically damaging aspects of reversing in Tunisian case our traditional principle of voting for inscription, however such a case may lack merit. Attitude of Asian-African group, as reported ourtel 656, March 29, is that France is sitting on both sides [Page 710] of conference table and therefore medium for good faith negotiations is absent. Future course of negotiations will reveal truth or falsity of Asian-African concern. Hence postponement of issue is supportable and we do not undermine our moral position if we explain reasons why we favor postponement.