501.BC/5–2146: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Stettinius) to the Secretary of State
urgent
[Received May 21—7 p.m.]
217. I called on M. Parodi38 at 4 o’clock this afternoon by appointment. Mr. J. E. Johnson39 accompanied me.
I told Parodi that the United States is considering very seriously bringing the Iranian question in its present status to the attention of the Security Council under article 35 of the Charter. If my Government definitely decides to do this I will make a statement to that effect at the Council meeting tomorrow, May 22, with the request that it be placed on the agenda for a meeting on Monday, May 27. I emphasized that this would constitute a separate agenda item and would not be dependent upon the information which the Iranian Government may present to the Council tomorrow. I explained that in the opinion of my Government the situation in Azerbaijan continues to constitute a matter of the kind with which the Council is legitimately concerned, and that this would remain true even though the Iranian Government should report that Soviet troops were completely withdrawn.
I further explained that the United States contemplates proposing the establishment of a Commission of Investigation to proceed to ascertain the facts with respect to the continuance of Soviet interference and to the reported civil war. I added that we are aware that a resolution proposing such a commission would require a substantive vote and that the question of a possible veto therefore arose.
I requested Parodi’s comments which were elaborated in the subsequent discussion in the course of which we told him of the UP story to the effect that the Iranian Government had officially announced that their Commission of Inquiry reported that all Soviet troops had been withdrawn by May 6, and of the AP report that Prince Firouz had stated that Ala, in referring in his recent letter to continued Soviet interference, was expressing his personal views and not those of the Iranian Government. We also attempted without success to obtain Parodi’s views with respect to the question of whether Soviet absence at the time of the vote would constitute a veto. We further endeavored, also without success, to persuade him that whether or not the matter constitutes a dispute within the meaning of chapter 6, the Soviet Union is a party to a dispute within the meaning of article 27 (3), since it is directly interested in the subject. On this second [Page 471] point, Parodi first inquired whether this interpretation was generally accepted, and when informed that it is not, commented that he did not see how one could maintain that a dispute exists when the interested states do not make such a claim.
Parodi inquired on what basis the Iranian question could be considered within the Council’s competence if both parties maintain they are satisfied. He was informed that we have reports indicating that Soviet civilians remain in Azerbaijan and that Soviet troops are in the Azerbaijanian Army. Reference was also made to the role of the Soviet Ambassador in the negotiations between Pishevari and Qavam.
Alluding to the question of the freedom of action of the Iranian Government, Parodi expressed doubt whether a government which is actually engaged in fighting a civil war can be regarded as not having freedom of action.
At the end of the conversation, Parodi inquired whether the United States would not be satisfied to bring the situation to the attention of the Council as a new matter, without proposing at once the sending of a Commission of Investigation. We made no direct reply.
Throughout the conversation, which was hampered by language difficulties, Parodi manifested a spirit of caution, both as French delegate and as Chairman of the Council. He promised, however, to reflect on the matter, adding that the suggestion advanced by the United States took him somewhat by surprise as he had thought that the withdrawal of Soviet troops by May 6 constituted at least a “little” victory for the Council.