111. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission to the United Nations 1

32664. Subj: Periodic SC Meetings. Ref:USUN 317.2

We agree we should give renewed consideration to idea of periodic SC meetings under Article 28 as proposed by Jakobson and you may so inform him.
You should also point out, however, that problems which have prevented implementation this idea in past must still be taken into [Page 220]account. Thus, while meetings at regular intervals would reduce exaggerated expectations and help assure that such meetings actually held and not just endorsed in principle, fixed dates could at times prove politically and otherwise inconvenient. Non-substantive aspect this problem might be alleviated if it generally accepted one of two annual periodic meetings might be composed of “specially designated” representatives under Article 28(2) rather than Foreign Ministers. Absence of agenda, which seems inherent in conception and could be an advantage, also introduces element of uncertainty and leaves wide initiative to SYG, which might or might not be desirable depending on international climate and SYG incumbent. Present composition of SC points up further difficulty. Meeting of present group of Foreign Ministers will inevitably put focus on Big Four, which, depending on circumstances at time each meeting, could be advantage or disadvantage. Finally, it may not be advisable to focus on “strengthening peacekeeping” as objective of periodic meetings since term “peacekeeping” has come to have rather specific connotations and its use here may lead to exaggerated expectations.
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 3 SC. Confidential. Drafted by Assistant Secretary Samuel De Palma and Virginia F. Hartley, cleared by John A. Armitage and Robert L. Brown, and approved by Assistant Secretary De Palma. Repeated to Helsinki, London, Moscow, Paris, and Brussels for USNATO.
  2. Document 110.