501.BC/9–647: Telegram
The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Hawkins) to the Secretary of State
4999. (1) Received today Foreign Office letter dated September 15 signed by Paul Mason, Counselor, UN political department, re organization of armed forces for SC (Deptel 3762, August 29). After opening phrases re British regret that speedier progress had not been possible to fulfill recommendation of GA, letter reads:
(2) “We hope, indeed, that the Assembly will take note of this disappointing situation and, while probing, as it thinks fit, into the causes of the delay, will once again urge that rapid progress should be made.
(3) At the same time, however, our authorities feel some doubts about the specific proposal for a recommendation by the Assembly on the lines indicated in your letter. It is fully understood that the desire underlying this proposal is to attempt to speed matters up and to produce some concrete offers of forces, facilities, etc., in the near future. Our authorities fear, however, that the result might be that we could only expect to get by March 31st, 1948, a heterogeneous force of very doubtful value and that such offers as might be made by individual nations would have to be welded into a satisfactory whole, which, in itself, would involve working over a good deal of ground which has already been covered in the Military Staff Committee.
(4) Moreover, by the same date of March 31, it is felt that there is a fair prospect that at least four members of the Military Staff Committee will have agreed on an estimate of the overall strength of the security forces and the proportion to be supplied by each of the Big Powers. Our authorities feel that it would be a pity to throw all this good work away, and that it would be more satisfactory to continue on the present basis of trying to wear the Russians down by a process of [Page 660] attrition. They consider that the Military Staff Committee, which will remain responsible for the strategic direction of the security forces once they are created, ought to retain their present responsibility for designing them and drawing up a carefully balanced scheme, into which individual contributions, which may be in the form of either forces or other facilities, can be fitted. If the Military Staff Committee is to perform its proper function in this respect, our authorities would not wish to see it by-passed by the General Assembly.
(5) I am also asked to point out that so far in the Military Staff Committee the Russians have stood firmly on the opinion that the first step in creating these security forces must be agreement on the basic principles governing their organization. If they maintained this position in the Assembly, the problem will arise as to whether there will be any advantage in pressing an establishment of these forces in the face of Russian opposition. In fact, if the proposal were adapted to the offers made, the Russians would still be able to veto acceptance of any or all of the offers in the Security Council.
(6) In the light of the foregoing considerations, I am asked to say that our authorities much hope that the United States authorities will think it wise to refrain from putting forward the proposal outlined in your letter, now under reply, in the General Assembly, though there is full agreement here that the Assembly should be asked to express its disappointment that progress has not permitted of negotiations of agreements under Article 43 of the Charter, and to urge again that the matter should be expedited by the Security Council.”