Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Korea, Volume XV, Part 2

320/1–1254: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations¹

confidential

Washington, January 12, 1954—6:52 p.m.

320. Re: Resumption GA. Communication from President of GA to UN Members requesting reconvening of Eighth GA on 9 February raises difficult problems of policy and procedure on which we feel it highly important to consult urgently with friendly delegations. Therefore, please approach UK, French, Canadian and other representative Commonwealth and Latin American Delegations and others in group of sixteen tomorrow to ascertain their promptest reaction to following alternative means of meeting situation created by Madame Pandit communication.

• First alternative would be to respond in negative to President’s communication on basis present situation and to urge other UN Members to do the same. Basis for this action would be that deciding hold GA before prisoners are released and before it is clear what will develop out of Panmunjom conversations could only complicate both POW and political conference situations. We therefore believe negative answer should be given to President’s communication in order to forestall a GA at which loyal UN Members will only be subjected to familiar barrage of pro-Communist proposals which will have to be beaten down and on which harmful compromises might have to be made.
• Second alternative would recognize that there is no advantage to be gained from holding GA in present circumstances, but would focus on point that we must not in any way agree to reconvening GA before prisoners are released or returned to the two commands in Korea, i.e., before January 23. Under this alternative we would retain flexibility to decide after prisoners are turned back exactly how we wish to react to resumption of GA for purpose of endorsing Indian action re prisoners or for utilization of GA in connection with preparations for political conference.

We would like to ascertain views other delegations before taking firm decision. In any event we believe UN members should in some way register dissent from terms of Madame Pandit’s communication, particularly sentence stating that “If for any reason your reply has not been received by that date, I venture to presume your concurrence with the initiative I have taken in this matter.” We consider this method of polling Members entirely inconsistent with evident intention of GA in adopting resolution Number 173 [716 (VIII)] of December 8, 1953. Debates in first committee reflect clear understanding on part of committee that GA could not be reconvened pursuant to terms of resolution unless majority of Members had actually expressed their concurrence. Language used in resolution follows that of Rule Nine of GA Rules of procedure governing calling of special session, and practice in application of this rule has always been clear in sense that majority of UN Members must positively express concurrence before special session can be convened. Interpretation now raised for first time by Madame Pandit could have serious consequences in enabling individual Members to profit by inertia or hesitation of Members to project GA into many sensitive questions which it ought not under the rules to consider unless an actual majority of UN Members concur. Method chosen by President clearly weights question on affirmative side on basis of arbitrary dates selected by her.

In making inquiries indicated above you should inform other delegations we do not agree that under the resolution failure to reply can be presumed to constitute a concurrence and we do not agree GA can be reconvened on this basis.²

In your conversations you should point out steps are underway to seek basis for resumption of talks at Panmunjom.³

Dulles

1. This telegram was drafted by Popper and cleared with Wainhouse, G. Hayden Raynor (Director, Office of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs), Drumright, Murphy (in principle), and John D. Jernegan (Deputy Assistant Secretary, NEA). It was repeated to London as 3600 and Paris as 2483.
2. In telegram 336, Jan. 13, Wadsworth reported the highlights of a meeting with the Sixteen. There was unanimous agreement that there should be an extension of the Jan. 22 date for at least a week or 10 days; the majority appeared to acquiesce to the inevitability of a resumed GA session some time in February; and the majority also believed that the “silence gives consent” procedure of Madame Pandit was a dangerous precedent. (320/11354)
3. In the final paragraph of telegram 336, the U.S. Mission asked for Department guidance on the possibility of sending a reply to the UN Secretary-General stating that it would be impossible to determine by Jan. 22 if the General Assembly should be reconvened. In telegram 328, Jan. 15, the Department of State sent a text of such a reply with instructions to address it to the Secretary-General. Furthermore, the reply stated that in view of the resolution of Dec. 8, 1953, and UN practice, the U.S. Government believed that the concurrence of a majority of members was required to reconvene the Eighth Session. (320/1–1354)