501.BC/4–2646: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Stettinius) to the Secretary of State
urgent
[Received 1:44 p.m.]
113. Attention Hiss. Request instructions regarding position on Rule A of S/Procedure/51, revision 1, in light of the following.35
As you will recall Johnson, acting under instructions, reserved the U.S. position on this rule and at his request Committee deferred further consideration of it. Subsequent to receipt of your Nos. 18 and 19 of April 13, Johnson handed copies of rule B set forth in former to representatives of U.K., France, China and U.S.S.R. explaining purpose of this rule and stating that he realized it, in effect, would constitute a reversal of decision reached by Big Five at San Francisco, June 11[7], 1945. He said that his Government had given further consideration to this question and believed that abstention of permanent members parties to a dispute was both desirable and consistent with provisions of Charter.
Johnson has now ascertained the views of his four colleagues as follows. The French are rather in favor of the proposed rule. The British see no objection to the proposed rule but believe it would be [Page 272] difficult to reach agreement on it. The Chinese apparently share the British view. Stein, on the other hand, states that he has consulted his Government and that it is opposed to such a rule. While a permanent member cannot be forced to vote he said, against its wishes, the Charter clearly imposes a special obligation on permanent members and they should not be encouraged by such a rule to abstain. Moreover, there might be serious practical difficulties if so many abstain as to make an affirmative vote impossible.
It appears certain that discussion on rule A of S/Procedure/51 will take place early next week. Johnson has indicated to all four of his above-mentioned colleagues that he may submit the proposed amendment to this rule at that time, but has made no final decision on this point.
In view of the facts that this rule would, in effect, reverse a five-power agreement and that Soviet Government opposes it, Johnson desires instructions regarding its submission to Committee as a whole. If he is not to introduce it, what attitude should be taken toward present rule A? If it is introduced and Stein announces his opposition, what course should be followed?
It is our tentative view that rule A, as it stands, can be accepted without prejudicing possible later amendment along the lines suggested in proposed redraft.