320/11–2552: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Department of State
priority
Delga 264. Re Korea. Co-sponsors of 21-power res on Korea met at 4:30 p.m. Nov 25. At end of mtg it was agreed without objection that communiqué along lines quoted below shld be handed to press and that this shld be only statement given press. Communiqué was read to press reps by Chairman Spender immediately after mtg substantially as follows: “The 21 co-sponsors of the res introduced on Oct 24 met this afternoon and unanimously reached agreement that priority in the [Page 682] voting shld be given to the Indian res introduced on Nov 17 as revised on Nov 23. It was also understood that necessary textual clarifications in para 17 of that res wld be sought to make it conform to the intention of the para as outlined in the statements made in the comite.”
As mtg began, Spender expressed hope it cld reach agreement on unconditional priority for Menon res, both as to discussion and voting, on the understanding that amendments might be tabled if desired.
The Secy pointed out that matter of priority referred only to priority of voting (rule 130 of GA rules of procedure) not priority of consideration which was not covered by any GA rule. He indicated US favored giving priority in voting to Menon res. He said it wld be a mistake to condition this priority on an agreement, which wld perhaps not be unanimous, re specific amendments. He hoped, however, there wld be an understanding that Menon res shld be made to say what Menon and Eden had meant in their speeches. When proper time came, he was sure amendments wld evolve and be adopted in this sense.
Lloyd (UK) remarked that Vishinsky’s speech had altered situation in comite. While he cld not give this as only or even most important reason for seeking priority for Menon res, he felt fortified in his belief he was right since Vishinsky had taken opposite side on this subj. UK agreed we shld support idea of priority for Menon res, and also that it wld be a mistake to impose any conditions. Lloyd agreed every del shld be free to seek clarification on points on which it had doubts.
After several dels had supported idea of priority for Menon res, Politis1 (Greece) raised question how clarification of para 17 of Menon res wld be obtained. Spender repeated point made by Secy and expressed view that discussion of amendments among dels inside and outside Comite 1 might lead Menon to make a further modification of his res or to indicate he wld accept certain amendments. Lloyd agreed, expressing hope that ventilation of doubts, especially by states not represented in group of 21 co-sponsors, wld constitute a form of pressure on Menon. Balluseck (Netherlands) warned that if co-sponsors pressed for clarification, Menon’s position wld become more difficult; he thought it preferable to entrust task of seeking clarification to countries, outside group of co-sponsors, situated in general area of India.
Martin (Canada) after praising Secy’s speech in Comite 1 yesterday, noted that his del had always believed Menon res shld have priority. He expressed opinion press communiqué shld be confined to this one issue. He hoped that Menon wld not be faced with undue number of requests for clarification, remarking that we wld not wish to see Menon res under any sponsorship except its present sponsorship. Further discussion revealed a consensus that number of interventions re clarification [Page 683] shld not be strictly limited, but that they shld be focused on important points, notably para 17, and that Asian-African interventions wld be considered desirable.
Secy then suggested language for press communiqué similar to that ultimately read by Spender, except that he used words “essential clarifying changes” in place of “necessary textual clarifications” finally agreed upon. Lloyd disliked words “essential clarifying changes” which he thought wld destroy effect of gesture being made to Menon; he also hoped that language wld read that each del “will be free to seek” clarifications. Secy pointed out this formulation wld indicate there was a split in comite. Lloyd also endeavored, but without success, to obtain omission of everything after word “sought” in second sentence of communiqué. Further discussion brought agreement on communiqué as finally phrased.
It was agreed on suggestion of Sarper (Turkey) that 21 co-sponsors wld continue to meet as necessary until fate of 21-power res had finally been determined.
Fol mtg, Gross, Hickerson, and Ross agreed with Selwyn Lloyd that Brit wld talk to Padilla Nervo (Mexico) and Lange2 (Norway) in effort to induce them to make speeches in Comite 1 Nov 26 re importance of clarifying para 17 of Menon res. US will similarly approach Belaunde (Peru) and one or two others, probably including Ethiopia. Purpose wld be gently to impress upon Menon desirability incorporating in his res points made in his own speech.
USDel will seek to arrange with Entezam and Muniz for a vote in first comite Nov 26 to give priority in voting to Menon res.