320/9–2651
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson)1
Subject: Action which Yugoslavia Proposes to Take at Forthcoming General Assembly Session2
| Participants: | The Honorable Vladimir Popovic, Yugoslav Ambassador |
| Dr. Mirko Bruner, First Secretary, Yugoslav Embassy | |
| Mr. John D. Hickerson, Assistant Secretary (UNA) | |
| Mr. Ward P. Allen, EUR | |
| Mr. David H. Popper, UNP |
Pursuant to remarks which he had made in a conversation with the Secretary on September 25,3 the Yugoslav Ambassador called on Mr. Hickerson to apprise us of three steps which the Yugoslav Government has in mind in connection with the forthcoming General Assembly.
1. Agenda Item on Soviet Aggression Against Yugoslavia
The Ambassador said that his government desired to put on the agenda an item relating to the aggressive policies of the USSR and the satellites against Yugoslavia. Under the item the Yugoslavs would seek Assembly condemnation of the Soviet aggressive policy, including frontier violations, hostile speeches and statements, the treatment of Yugoslav minorities in satellite states, the treatment of Yugoslav diplomats, the economic warfare of the Soviet bloc—in fact, the whole range of hostile Soviet activities vis-à-vis Yugoslavia. The Ambassador stated that the form in which the item would be presented was not yet clear, and that his government would welcome our view on this question as well as on the matter of whether this was an appropriate time to introduce such an item. It appeared that the Yugoslav objective would be an Assembly resolution of condemnation calling upon the Soviets to halt their aggressive procedures. In answer to my questions, the Ambassador indicated that the Yugoslav attitude on possible use of the Peace Observation Commission or other fact-finding machinery was not yet fixed and might depend on the results of consultations with friendly states. He took the line that a Yugoslav initiative of the type proposed would be useful regardless of whether or not a Soviet peace offensive developed at the General Assembly.
Although Mr. Popovic pressed for an indication that I regarded the idea favorably, I told him that I would prefer not to give him an offhand opinion but would consult urgently with my colleagues in the Department and give him more definite word within a few days.
2. Declaration on Rights and Duties of States
Mr. Popovic said that his government was planning to bring before the General Assembly once again its draft declaration on the rights and duties of states, which was last considered in the Assembly in 1949. His government felt that adoption of such a declaration would be useful in the general interest, particularly since it would lay down moral obligations upon states which do not recognize the independence of others. In this regard such a declaration [Page 1848] would be effective as a means of mobilizing opposition to Soviet policies. As regards the precise terms of such a declaration, the Yugoslavs were ready to consider any observations other governments might have on particular points in the existing draft.
I reviewed for the Ambassador the difficulties we had had in accepting any formulation of a draft declaration in the past. I pointed out that we feared the result of adopting a declaration would merely be to restrain law-abiding states without affecting Soviet policies. We had not been able to work out any language which could not be evaded in one way or another. As an example of the difficulties inherent in the adoption of such a declaration, I referred to reports carried in the press on September 23 to the effect that certain émigré groups in this country were alarmed at the code of offenses against the peace and security of mankind, being drafted by the International Law Commission. I recalled that these groups had felt that, although directed against subversive activities in general, some of the provisions of the draft might if observed operate to prevent steps designed to liberate the Soviet satellite states.
The Ambassador regretted that this was our view. He doubted that the considerations I had raised would have much importance alongside the real benefit to be gained from a declaration which would highlight the injustice of Soviet treatment of the Baltic peoples and the peoples of the satellite states. It was left that our experts would give further examination to the current status of the draft declaration, and that I would inform the Ambassador of our attitude in greater detail in the near future.
3. Yugoslav Candidacy for a General Assembly Vice-Presidency
The Ambassador informed me of the Yugoslav candidacy. I pointed out that we would consider it sympathetically, but that we could not give an answer until we had been able to firm up our views on the composition of the entire General Committee. I indicated that it might be some time before we could do this, since we did not yet have much information on the individuals who would head the various delegations in the General Assembly.
4. Successor to Yugoslavia on the Security Council
I took the occasion to inform the Ambassador that we opposed the election of a Soviet satellite to succeed Yugoslavia on the Security Council. He said that they did, too. He had no information on whom Yugoslavia might support for the seat, stating that his government had not been approached by any candidate. He will seek to ascertain his government’s views.
- Drafted by Allen on October 9.↩
- The Sixth Session of the U.N. General Assembly was scheduled to meet in Paris beginning November 6.↩
- The memorandum of conversation of September 25 which records the meeting between Secretary Acheson and Ambassador Popović is in file 601.6811/9–2551. The conversation dealt largely with the question of Trieste.↩