IO Flies: US/A/M(Chr)/122
Minutes of the Twenty-eighth Meeting of the United States Delegation to the Fourth Regular Session of the General Assembly, New York, November 8, 1949, 9 a. m.
[Here follows a list of persons (45) present.]
Ambassador Austin presented Mr. George Kennan, Counsellor of the Department of State, to the Delegation. Mr. Kennan said that this was his first visit to the United Nations and he had only seen it in action for one day. For this reason, he was reluctant to make any comments. Obviously the United Nations practiced a different kind of diplomacy with a different set of values than that practiced in Washington or in the field. It was our task to find a common denominator between these types of diplomacy. He regarded the Assembly as an impressive and intensely interesting operation. In it, diplomacy had been taken to a new plane on which there were very interesting possibilities.1 Ambassador Austin commented that he thought the United States was learning the technique of consultation in the UN. [Page 124] There were encouraging developments in this direction, including unanimously favorable reactions to consultation on preliminary draft proposals on important subjects.
1. Substitute resolution for “Soviet Peace Pact Proposal” (US/A/C.1/1586/Rev. 1)2
Mr. Noyes commented that this resolution had probably been before more Delegations and through more consultations than any previous resolution. The text had first been agreed upon with the French and British, and other Delegations had been consulted on this agreed text. There had been no definitive results, although he felt the draft resolution was acceptable to the great majority as a substitute for the Soviet resolution. He recalled the difficulty which had arisen with the British regarding the “Notes with regret” paragraph; the British had finally agreed to drop this paragraph after a number of states had indicated such a deletion would be helpful in firming up their support for the substitute resolution.
Mr. Noyes pointed out that we had two principal objectives in this case. The first was to defeat the Soviet resolution without amendment. The second was to reach agreement on a substitute resolution which the majority could support. While there were indications that other substitute resolutions were under consideration, we now felt fairly confident that such substitutes had been headed off. We did not know whether amendments would be submitted to our draft. He noted that the Soviet item might come before the First Committee this week.
Mr. Noyes cautioned that this substitute resolution was being kept confidential. It would not be introduced until after Mr. Vyshinsky had spoken. Ambassador Austin was scheduled to speak immediately after Mr. Vyshinsky. Other Delegates supporting our resolution would come into the debate at well-spaced intervals and we had cooperated with these Delegates in order that all major aspects of the problem raised could be covered. In other words, the debate would be a team operation on an informal basis. The only change would come about if any new element should be introduced by the Vyshinsky speech.
Ambassador Austin asked the liaison officers how this resolution stood with the other Delegations. Mr. Raynor stated that all the European countries had been covered both by the US and by the British. The Near Eastern and Asian states had been partly covered in this round of consultations, although all other states in this area had been previously consulted. Mr. Dreier reported that all the Latin American states had been consulted previously, and Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, El Salvador and Colombia had been shown this draft. Ambassador Austin commented that all Members of the British Commonwealth [Page 125] were committed to this fight. All their suggested amendments had been presented and considered in advance. At this stage it was important not to overdo our consultation so that it leaked prematurely to the public. The meetings which had been held were quite secret. Ambassador Austin explained that the resolution would be submitted after Mr. Vyshinsky spoke, since it was believed that this would put us in a better strategic position, particularly if Vyshinsky should raise any new points. He noted that the group of Delegates which had met on this resolution had contained various specialists, such as Malik and Santa Cruz on human rights, and Norway on legal problems, and their suggestions had been helpful in obtaining a strong draft resolution. It was hoped to work out a category of points under which the debate could be broken down, and all Delegations which were interested could participate in the program accordingly.
Senator Cooper inquired whether the Soviet proposals for a peace pact and on atomic energy had made any impression. Ambassador Austin said that they had had enough effect that other Delegates did not wish us to omit the subject in our draft resolution, and accordingly the last paragraph referred to the atomic energy problem. Mr. Hickerson commented that this provision was in fact the key-note of the French-Canadian resolution on atomic energy which had been introduced in the Ad Hoc Political Committee. This resolution stressed the fact that so long as there were large atomic facilities in the hands of national governments, the world would feel insecure and that we must get away from any reactionary notions about sovereignty, and share sovereignty to the limited extent necessary to have effective control. This line was popular with small countries. Ambassador Austin referred to the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 in which the Congress had declared the necessity for effective safeguards and pointed to it as the oaken beam of the superstructure for atomic energy control. Mr. Hickerson commented that other Delegations had expressed considerable enthusiasm for the way in which this resolution had been handled.
Mr. Fahy pointed out that the phrase “this force” in the final paragraph was rather ambiguous and might be considered as referring back to “atomic weapons”. He suggested it might be amended to read “atomic energy”. Mr. Compton said he considered the matter of sovereignty a very significant one. He preferred the phrase “joint exercise of sovereignty” rather than the word “sharing” which some people construed to mean dividing.
Ambassador Austin stated that these suggestions would be taken into account by the working group, and that the resolution would be brought back as amended for final clearance.
[Here follows discussion of other subjects.]