Office of the Historian

94. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State0

New York, April 12, 1961, 9 p.m.

2833. Cuban item. Yost this morning gave Amadeo text US substitute res.1 Amadeoʼs immediate reaction was while he personally could accept res, he was sure paras 5 and 6 referring specifically to Cuba would be unacceptable to some LAs and would be virtually impossible to get approved in comite. He promised to consult LA group on US text and give us their reaction.

During course of day USDel received various reports that reaction to US text had been sharply adverse. Amadeo at one point reported LAs had decided to drop attempt to work out satisfactory res. Padilla Nervo said one-sidedness US res reflected US not taking LA group seriously and, therefore, they were discontinuing effort.

Yost met with Amadeo and LA group (reps LAs, except Bolivia, still recognizing Cuba) late afternoon. They expressed strong objection to US draft. Principal points: (1) it would divide LAs, many of which for domestic reasons could not support US res; (2) it would draw fire from countries in other areas and provoke debate, instead of providing mechanism for rapid disposition of item.

Yost explained US position and succeeded in quieting LAs down. He made very clear US (1) could not accept any res which envisaged situation as bilateral dispute between Cuba and US and (2) wanted to have res include reference to extracontinental threat. LAs requested time to revise their draft (USUN 2808)2 taking into account US views. Promised to furnish new draft tomorrow.

This afternoon Diallo Telli (Guinea) called on Stevenson to get reaction res they had prepared. Res based on Ecuador-Chile res presented SC last Jan.3 Text sent ourtel 2835.4 Stevenson explained US favored no res, Cuban situation not bilateral problem, and Guinea draft unacceptable. Stevenson gave no indication US talking with LAs on res but said we would inform Guinea if it became necessary have res and one acceptable to US presented.

Stevenson
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 737.00/4-1261. Confidential; Priority.↩
  2. See Document 90.↩
  3. See footnote 4, Document 89.↩
  4. See Document 10.↩
  5. Dated April 12. (Department of State, Central Files, 737.00/4-1261)↩