501.BC/5–2946: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Johnson)
92. For J. E. Johnson from Hiss. Reference telephone conversation June 10 between Bancroft and J. E. Johnson concerning Rule of Procedure proposed by U.K. defining dispute set forth in no. 12 of March 28, from New York.
The problem of defining a dispute in the rules raises the entire question of the voting procedure of the SC and our position set forth in Amdel 18 and 19 of April 13.
It is perhaps possible that a sufficiently comprehensive definition of a dispute incorporated into the Rules of Procedure might accomplish the desired result of preventing a permanent member from vetoing the Council’s decision that it must abstain from voting. However, we doubt if such a comprehensive definition would be acceptable to all the members of the SC at the present time.
We therefore believe that any advantage to be gained through our [Page 278] favoring a rule such as that proposed by the British would be more than offset by the following considerations:
- 1.
- We agree with your position as set forth in your telegram 251 of May 29 distinguishing between a determination as to the existence of a dispute or situation and the separate and not necessarily related determination as to the parties to abstain from voting. The U.S. position on the type of vote that will be required on the latter determination is set forth in Amdel 18 and 19 of April 13. A rule of procedure such as that proposed by the U.K. which fails to differentiate between the meaning of dispute as used in Article 27 (3) and its meaning in other sections of the Charter would be inconsistent with this position and might complicate future discussion of the whole voting and abstention problem.
- 2.
- We believe that your suggestion to the British as set forth in telegram 251 of May 29 that parties involved in a situation as well as parties to a dispute must abstain from voting is sound both historically and analytically. The definition of a dispute in the rules would, we believe, make it difficult for us to assert this position.
- 3.
- We believe that the best way to distinguish between procedural and substantive questions is to indicate those decisions which are clearly procedural and those which are clearly substantive either by separate lists or by an indication in each relevant rule as to the manner in which the decision is to be taken. We believe the Soviets should be willing to accept this procedure in view of Professor Stein’s statements to “the Committee of Experts (S/Procedure/60, p. 6) and also since such a procedure is in accord with the Soviet proposal at San Francisco. (See Amdel 24, April 15). While the procedure of enumerating in the Rules the substantive and procedural decisions is not closely related to the idea of defining a dispute, we fear that the British approach might tend to shift the emphasis from our approach which we believe over a period of time has greater chances of success.
- 4.
- Finally, we see no real hope that it will be possible to work out a satisfactory definition of a dispute. Hartley informs us that numerous previous efforts have been made and were unsuccessful.
Although as you point out in your 251 of May 29 the UK and US approaches are not mutually exclusive, any attempt by the British to press for an agreed definition of dispute in the Committee of Experts will raise all the angles of the whole voting problem.
We therefore suggest that you try to persuade the British to postpone any discussion of this matter. It may be that developments during the summer may alter the British position. Likewise on the basis of further information which you may furnish us it might be desirable to reconsider our position upon Mr. Cohen’s return from Europe.45 [Hiss.]
- The Counselor of the Department (Cohen) was about to leave with the Secretary of State for the Paris meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers (June 13).↩