Office of the Historian

861.24591/6–446: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Iran (Allen)

secret
Washington, June 4, 1946—8 p.m.

482. Brit, Netherlands and Chinese reps SC yesterday agreed to suggestion of US Deputy rep that there was no necessity for SC meeting this week on Iranian matter, unless some further word was forthcoming from Iranian Govt. Cadogan has recent instructions to press for retention of Iranian matter on agenda, regardless of whether Iranian Govt asks that matter be dropped. Purpose of Brit position is to indicate to Iranians that SC stands behind them and to the world that Council disapproves of Sov tactics. Van Kleffens position remains not to drop matter without statement that Council is dissatisfied with situation. Quo has new instructions to support dropping matter from agenda if Iranians want whole matter dropped and if Council is not prepared to consider some affirmative action. If matter is dropped, he hopes Council can indicate to world that it is not satisfied with present situation and that matter remains of continuing concern to Council.

Johnson stated that US is carefully considering whole matter, and that our position as stated at last meeting SC still stands, but should be considered tentative and subject to possible change.

Byrnes

[No further word was forthcoming from the Iranian Government. The Security Council did not hold a meeting that week on the Iranian question (nor indeed for the remainder of 1946) and remained seized of the matter, as had been determined at its meeting on May 22 (see telegram 223, May 22, from New York, page 473).

[Page 494]

In memorandum No. SD/S/786 of December 10, 1946, Mr. S. K. C. Kopper of the Division of International Security Affairs drew the following conclusions from the deliberations of the Security Council on the Iranian question:

  • “1. The Security Council did not undertake a substantive examination of the second Iranian complaint. Consideration which the Council gave to the case was limited to procedural phases.
  • “2. The Security Council established the precedent of conducting its business in the absence of one of its permanent members. The test of whether the Security Council could take substantive action in the absence of a permanent member was not made.
  • “3. The Security Council determined that withdrawal of the complaint by a Member of the United Nations does not obligate the Council to cease to be seized of the complaint.
  • “4. The Secretary-General established the precedent of submitting opinions to the Council on matters of which it is seized.
  • “5. The Security Council is faced with the problem of what credence should be given to the statements of a representative of a Government who was duly accredited by that Government but who in reality seemed to be partially repudiated.” (IO files)]