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

2773. Subj: Chirep: UK Position.

Bush at SC luncheon Sept 20 again made strong pitch UK support US initiative on Chirep to maximum possible extent. Although we recognized UK had not supported us on substance in the past, it had been helpful on procedure. We very much needed UK support for such procedural aspects as inscription of US item, grouping it with AR under neutral formulation, priority for IQ. Colin Crowe said he still had no instructions on Chirep.
Just after lunch Crowe called to say UK position was as fols:
UK would vote against IQ and DR.
UK would have to vote for priority for AR (UKUN interprets this as voting against priority for IQ).
UK would have to oppose inscription of US item if it came to the vote. (Crowe gave as his personal estimate that AR co-sponsors might not oppose inscription of US item.)
Bush said he “was ashen with dismay.” He said he would report foregoing to Dept immediately and he knew reaction would be one of surprise in view of UK undertaking that it would do nothing to make US task more difficult.
In subsequent telcon, Weir (UK) asked when in General Comite we would make motion to have items grouped under neutral title. We said we had not decided whether to do this at outset of consideration of Albanian item or to wait until Albanian item and US item inscribed and then propose grouping. Weir said his instructions did not yet cover this point.2
  1. Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 301, Agency Files, USUN, Vol. VII. Secret; Exdis. Repeated to London and Taipei.
  2. Later in the day, the Department telegraphed Ambassador Annenberg and urged him to meet with Foreign Secretary Douglas-Home at the earliest opportunity to seek to persuade him to vote for inscription of the U.S. item during the General Committee meeting. (Telegram 173141 to London, September 21; ibid., RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 6 CHICOM) Douglas-Home agreed to review the British position and decided that, if the General Committee discussion was purely procedural, Ambassador Crowe could vote for inscription. Should the discussion turn substantive (dual representation), Crowe should vote against inscription. (Telegrams 8746, September 21, and 8777 from London, September 22; both ibid.) Annenberg’s analysis of Douglas-Home’s reasoning is in telegram 8792 from London, September 22. (Ibid.)