IO Files: US/A/C.1/401

Memorandum by Mr. Eric Stein of the United States Delegation Staff of Advisers

confidential
Participants: Mr. Dulles
Mr. Rusk
Miss Fosdick
Mr. Marcy
Mr. Notter
Mr. Popper
Mr. Stein
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Thompson
Mr. Wainhouse

Memorandum of Meeting Held on October 20 on the Interim Committee

Mr. Dulles asked whether the proposed Interim Committee was contemplated as a technical study group or whether it should function for the purpose of crystallizing world opinion through discussion like the [Page 213] General Assembly itself. If the second alternative is adopted, he anticipated objections both from legal and policy standpoint. The political objections arise primarily out of fear that the discussions in the Committee will accentuate the U.S.-U.S.S.R. conflict and perpetuate the wrangling and name-calling. He suggested a test which the Interim Committee might follow in selecting matters for its agenda: The Committee should consider only major matters with which the General Assembly could not adequately deal without prior preparation through study and investigation, such as the Korean and Palestinian question.

Mr. Dulles said that the Committee’s decision whether it should take up a matter should be made by a simple majority since a requirement of a two-thirds majority might lead to the formation of a bloc within the Committee which could exercise a type of a veto; however, if there is a strong pressure for a two-thirds majority requirement, Mr. Dulles was inclined not to make it a fighting issue.

Mr. Dulles also pointed to the opposition among our friends to the jurisdiction of the Committee under Articles 11(1) and 13(1a) and raised the question whether and to what extent we should be ready to abandon this function of the Committee. Mr. Wainhouse suggested that we should do all in our power to retain the jurisdiction both under Articles 11(1) and 13(1a) and, if pressed, we might abandon the reference to Article 13(1a). Mr. Dulles then inquired what specific studies are envisaged under the two provisions. Mr. Rusk mentioned the possible activities of the Comintern, and Mr. Notter referred to Soviet pressure on Turkey and certain forms of Soviet economic penetration in the Balkans. He also mentioned that in the exercise of its jurisdiction in this field, the Committee could evolve more detailed principles with a view to improving the techniques for pacific settlement of disputes through the means indicated in Article 33(1). Mr. Dulles mentioned also the development of the provisions of Article 36(3), and indirect aggression. Mr. Stein recalled that Sir Hartley referred in this connection to indirect aggression, “general principles governing the summoning of international conferences” and the principles of nonintervention. Mr. Dulles thought that at least some of these topics might fall in the field of development of international law. Some discussion ensued as to which of these topics could be dealt with under other Articles within the proposed jurisdiction of the Committee. Mr. Notter emphasized that if we should agree to dropping the study functions of the Committee, it could be argued that its character as a competitor of the Security Council would become more pronounced. Mr. Dulles suggested that the Interim Committee could be entrusted with the task to prepare a working plan for the studies under Articles 11(1) and 13(1a) rather than to undertake the studies themselves. Mr. Rusk agreed with this suggestion and said that an appropriate [Page 214] provision could be added to the clause requiring the Committee to report on the desirability of the establishment of a permanent Interim Committee.

It was agreed that we will oppose the Canadian proposal to extend the Committee’s preparatory functions to items other than those relating to international peace and friendly relations. Mr. Rusk emphasized that one of the dangers of such extension would be that the Committee might turn into a permanent organ investigating the activities of the Secretary-General and other organs of the United Nations. However, we might accept the Canadian suggestion that the Committee should consider and report to the General Assembly on the implementation of resolutions referred to it by the General Assembly. Mr. Dulles suggested that this provision could be spelled out in paragraph 2(f) of the United States resolution although this paragraph in its present form appears to cover the Canadian suggestion.

Referring to the United Kingdom draft resolution, Mr. Wainhouse said that this resolution fails to provide for recommendations or for reports by the Committee to the General Assembly in connection with the Committee’s preparatory function. It was agreed that the Committee must be given express authority to “report” or make “proposals” to the General Assembly; however, we will not insist on the use of the word “recommendations”.

Eric Stein