Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 1

IO Files: US(P)/A/205

United States Delegation Position Paper

[Paris,] November 1, 1948.

Report of the First Committee on a Resolution Introduced by the Delegation of Mexico Under the Title “Appeal to the Great Powers To Renew Their Efforts To Compose Their Differences and Establish a Lasting Peace”¹

1. United States Position

The United States Delegation should vote in favor of this resolution, as it did in Committee 1 by informal agreement with the other Major Powers.

It may be desirable for the United States Representative to make a brief statement on this resolution in the circumstances suggested in paragraph 3 below.

2. History in Committee

After statements by representatives of the five Major Powers, many Latin American states, and certain other countries, the Mexican resolution was referred by Committee 1 to a drafting sub-committee. In a single session, the sub-committee reached unanimous agreement on an amended text.² The original Mexican draft was changed in three respects:

a) A Soviet amendment to the fourth operative paragraph of the Mexican resolution leaves the Great Powers free to choose the method by which they will associate with themselves in the peace-making process the other signatories and adherents to the United Nations Declaration. (The Mexican resolution had provided that this should be done either through the General Assembly or by means of a special conference.)

b) A French re-phrasing of the other operative paragraphs of the resolution clarifies the wording of the draft and avoids any possible implication in the Mexican draft that France and China, which did not participate in the Yalta Declaration are in any way excluded from the ranks of the Great Powers.

c) A further drafting change to the first operative paragraph of the resolution, proposed by the Soviet Union, restores the names of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin to the draft as authors of the Yalta Declarations of 11 February 1945.

The resolution was adopted unanimously by the First Committee in the form recommended by its sub-committee.

3. Possible Developments in the Plenary Meeting

There would appear to be three possibilities:

a) The Latin American states and other smaller powers may speak in the Plenary Session in order to express their fear of the consequences of the dissensions among the Great Powers and their hope for the restoration of Great-Power cooperation. In this case, it would not be necessary for the United States Representative to make a statement.

b) Other permanent members of the Security Council may make statements pledging themselves to continue their efforts to conclude the peace treaties and restore a greater measure of cooperation among themselves. If other permanent members of the Security Council speak, the United States Representative should make a brief statement along the lines of the statement made by Mr. Dulles in Committee 1 to this effect.

c) The Soviets may conceivably use the occasion to make a statement referring to the Berlin crisis and presenting their point of view. In this case, it may be advisable, depending on the nature of the Soviet statement, for the United States Representative to reply with a brief statement reiterating the position of the United States.³

1. For the report of the First Committee on this item, see GA (III/1), Plenary, Annexes, pp. 287–289.
2. For the report of Sub-Committee 13 and the amended text, see GA (III/1), First Committee, Annexes, pp. 24–26.
3. On November 3 the draft resolution was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly with no discussion; for the proceedings see GA(III/1), Plenary, pp. 372–374. For text of Resolution 190 (III), see GA(III/1), Resolutions, pp. 15–16.