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

IO Files: US/A/C.1/1722

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. John C. Dreier, Adviser, United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly

confidential

[New York,] November 12, 1949.

I spoke to Dr. Padilla Nervo at the close of the Committee I meeting yesterday concerning the points he had made in our conversation that morning (see US/A/C.1/1711¹). I explained that the resolution was in what we believed to be final form but that we were, of course, anxious to accommodate his views in so far as possible, particularly if it meant that the resolution would receive his full support.

I told Dr. Padilla first that consideration had been given to a possible recommendation regarding peace treaties, but that it had been decided for various reasons not to include a provision on that subject. Among other things Ambassador Padilla Nervo would recall that the Mexican resolution of a year ago made a very clear recommendation on the peace treaties which we felt should be allowed to stand. Ambassador Padilla Nervo assented to this view.

I explained that in the early draft as Dr. Padilla knew, reference had been included to “consultation” in connection with the use of the veto in the SC. This reference had been taken out following the agreement among the “big five” to consult before using the veto. In view of this agreement, and recalling that a specific resolution had been adopted by the GA last spring recommending such consultation, we had felt that the phrase “to broaden progressively their cooperation” covered the concept of consultation adequately. However, I said, if Dr. Padilla felt very strongly on the need of specific reference for consultation it might be possible to work it in.

Dr. Padilla said that he understood our point of view on this matter and that he could see reasons for not pressing this point. “But”, he said, “what about the other point about peaceful settlement of disputes—that is the one I feel most strongly about”. I told him that this concept of peaceful settlement was certainly implicit in the draft resolution but that we felt that it might be of advantage, as he suggested, to make an explicit statement of the principle. I pointed out one or two places in which a statement of this principle could be inserted. Dr. Padilla readily agreed. Without making any comment I indicated that we were favorable to this suggestion.

I then asked Dr. Padilla whether, if this change were made, he would consider the resolution a good one which he could fully support He said that he considered it a good resolution—the only point about which he had reservations remained the reference to “restraint in the use of the veto”. He then spoke at some length about his ideas on this subject, saying that personally he disagreed with his government. The Mexican Government, he said, was against the veto, whereas Dr. Padilla recognized it as essential and believed that the principle of five-power unanimity was essential to the success of the UN. Elimination of the veto would never be approved by the U.S. Senate, he observed, at least under present conditions. In view of this Dr. Padilla said he considered it necessary at all times to insist upon the importance of agreement being reached among the “big five”; he cited various instances in the past when he had taken this course and where agreement had finally been reached despite long discussion and seeming impossibility of accord. His objection to the words in our resolution quoted above arose from the fact that they pointed a finger at the Soviet Union and mistakenly emphasized the use of the veto as the obstacle to peace. Dr. Padilla feels that the true obstacle is the inability of the five powers to agree and that consultation prior to the use of the veto is the most important immediate step to be emphasized as a means of achieving five power unanimity wherever possible.

At one point I mentioned to Dr. Padilla our desire to have our resolution reflect a broad enough point of view so that amendments would not be offered in the Committee. He quickly said that he did not intend to offer any amendments and that he would never do such a thing without consulting with Ambassador Austin in advance.

1. In the conversation under reference, Padilla Nervo raised three points regarding the United States–United Kingdom draft resolution. First, he stated the belief that it was deficient in not calling upon all states to settle their disputes by peaceful means. Secondly, he expressed the opinion that a reference to consultation would be preferable to the phrase calling upon the Big Five “to exercise restraint in the use of the veto.” Finally, he said that he felt that the resolution would benefit from a reference to the peace treaties. (IO Files: US/A/C.1/1711)