Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

IO Files: US/A/C.1/1196

Memorandum by Mr. Philip C. Jessup, Member of the United States Delegation, to Ambassador Austin

secret

[New York,] September 30, 1949.

Subject: Soviet Resolution in Committee I

Although I have not had an opportunity to formulate my thoughts in any detail, I do feel strongly that we must give most careful consideration to our tactics in handling the Soviet Resolution in the First Committee.

I agree entirely with the view which was expressed in the Delegation Meeting¹ and also in the document US/A/C.1/1182² that the Soviets have designed the three paragraphs to constitute one single trap. At the same time, the three paragraphs considered separately are very different in their substance and nature. A speech like that of the Icelandic Delegate in the First Committee today I think represents a rather general point of view which will become evident; namely, that a step for a peace pact among the Big Five would be an ample supplement to the Mexican Resolution of Paris. I believe that we would find ourselves in a very bad situation in terms of UN opinion and in terms of our own public opinion if we relied wholly on the inherently sound argument that this whole Soviet Resolution is a hypocritical maneuver.

It is true that what we really need is not more agreements signed by the Soviet [Union] but more performance of agreements already concluded. Nevertheless, we are parties to other treaties with various states providing for pacific settlement, etc. We have participated in the Interim Committee in attempts to improve procedures for pacific settlement of disputes. The Soviet [Union] has consistently refused to cooperate in these efforts. Our record is good; their record is bad.

I suggest that careful consideration should be given to the desirability of drafting and distributing at a very early date a resolution which would contain the text of a treaty which could be recommended to the Big Five for signature. An alternate procedure would be for us to distribute in some other way an American proposal for a treaty of pacific settlement to which the other four permanent members of the Security Council would be parties. In either case, the treaty should contain the obligation to utilize those means of pacific settlement which have long commended themselves to most states except the Soviet Union. There should be a provision regarding the submission of legal questions to the International Court of Justice; another provision regarding conciliation procedure with provision for the appointment of a neutral member by some outside authority in case of disagreement among the parties; there might well be reference to the acceptance of recommendations of the Assembly regarding the use of the veto in the Security Council. I do not attempt to suggest the entire content, but I would pick up a large number of the procedures for pacific settlement which we are ready to accept or have accepted and which the Soviets hate steadily declined to accept. It seems to me that an affirmative approach of this kind would be tactically advantageous in the Assembly and sound from bur over-all point of view. The presentation of such a proposal would not preclude our pointing out the actual nature of the Soviet Resolution and our conviction that what we need is Soviet performance of the obligations of the Charter. We would be on much stronger ground, however, if we go beyond that and say of course we are ready to sign supplemental treaties for pacific settlement and then go ahead to suggest the kind of agreement we have in mind.

Philip C. Jessup

Ambassador at Large

1. Reference is to the 7th Meeting of the Delegation, September 26. In Delga 29, September 26, the Secretary of State reported to the Department that the Delegation had taken the following decisions regarding the Soviet resolution:

   “Delegation agreed that US representative on general committee should vote for inclusion of Soviet proposals on agenda, making clear, however, US regarded them as propaganda. US representative further authorized to support reference paragraphs 1 and 3 to Committee 1 (latter paragraph either in present form or simply in form of a general title), and paragraph 2 to Ad Hoc Political Committee. At same time US representative given general discretion to depart from preferred position as circumstances might require. Delegation also agreed US should oppose adoption of the Soviet proposals and should not seek to amend them.” (501.BB/9–2649)

2. Document US/A/C.1/1182, September 28, a draft United States Delegation position paper on the question of the Soviet resolution, is not printed.