501.BC/5–847: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
210. 1. Reference cablegram from Chairman Balkan Investigation Commission to President SC May 5, 1947.1 (S/343). Since communications and statements by three liaison officers do not necessarily represent considered positions of their governments, SC discussions at this juncture should if possible avoid magnifying this matter into major question for UN. This is a case where certain governments through their liaison officers have challenged the Investigation Commission authority to issue certain directives under terms SC resolutions December 19 and April 18. A much more serious situation would arise if after SC confirms authority of Commission to issue such directives (see para 3 below) these states should actually obstruct subsidiary group in performance of its functions. This would constitute open defiance of SC.
2. Since in the future this matter could have grave implications, great care should be exercised in establishing a solid record of US position along following lines:
A. Authority of subsidiary group
Authority of subsidiary group to perform its functions in parts of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia is derived from:
- (1)
- Paragraph 4 of the resolution adopted unanimously by SC on December 19, 1946.
- (2)
- Resolution adopted by SC April 18, 1947.
- (3)
- Paragraphs II and V of the Directive to the Subsidiary Group. (S/337).
Resolution of December 19 clearly authorized Commission to perform its functions in parts of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania. Resolution of April 18 directed Commission to maintain a subsidiary group “in the area concerned”, which we interpret to mean the area designated in December 19 resolution. Therefore, SC clearly empowered Commission to issue a directive to subsidiary group providing for performance of its functions in Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.
B. Obligations of Yugoslavia to comply with Directives of Commission.
Pursuant to Article 25, Yugoslavia as Member of UN has agreed to accept and carry out decisions of SC. Resolution of Dec 19 approved unanimously. President ruled that Resolution of April 18 was carried (USSR abstaining). This was not challenged.
It is not necessary to decide whether recommendations pursuant to Chapter VI constitute a decision within meaning Article 25. Charter clearly contemplates that SC makes decisions under Chapter VI as indicated:
- (1)
- By language of Article 27 which speaks of “decisions under Chapter VI.”
- (2)
- By discussions of Article 25 at San Francisco Conference where no state questioned that Article 25 applied to decisions under Chapter VI as well as Chapter VII.
- (3)
- By fact that nothing in Charter indicates that term “decision” is word of art applicable only to decisions under Chapter VII.
Part I paragraph 4 of Four Power Statement at San Francisco makes it clear that action of SC to investigate under Article 34 constitutes a decision.
SC established Investigation Commission by decision under Article 34. By additional decision SC directed Commission to establish subsidiary group. Members clearly obligated under Article 25 carry out both decisions of SC. This obligation also extends to directives of Commission within its terms of reference.
C. Obligations of Bulgaria and Albania.
Bulgaria in letter to SC of December 18 stated “that it accepts and will carry out the obligations for the pacific settlement provided in the Charter for the purposes of this case”. Albania in a letter to SYG dated December 18, 1946 accepted “the obligations contained in the Charter of the United Nations and … in the matter under consideration …2 the decision of the SC in the framework of the provisions of Article 25 of the Charter”. Thus both countries are bound to the same extent as Members of UN.
3. In present circumstances we think SC should confirm to Investigation Commission that its directives for subsidiary group (S/337) are within scope of its authority under SC resolutions December 19 [Page 845] and April 18 and that Directive IV in compliance with penultimate para December 19 resolution constitutes an invitation and is not mandatory.
4. In presenting US view you may wish to refer to the cooperation of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in the past work of Commission and state US can not believe that, if the subsidiary group in the performance of its functions as directed by SC and Investigation Commission, finds its necessary to enter Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, these countries would fail to honor their obligations.
5. Dept unreservedly endorses general position of Ethridge 59.3
Sent New York—repeated Geneva Athens, Salonika, Belgrade, Sofia, London, Moscow.
- SC, 2nd yr., Suppl. 11, p. 123; it conveyed the refusal of the Yugoslav, Albanian and Bulgarian Liaison Representatives to participate in the work of the Subsidiary Group of the Commission of Investigation and referred the matter to the Security Council. The Commission Chairman, on April 30, had cabled to the President of the Council its directive to the Subsidiary Group, scheduled to leave for Salonika on or about May 3; for text, see ibid., p. 121.↩
- Omissions indicated in the original.↩
- Identified also as telegram 235, May 5, 6 p. m.,
from Geneva; Mr. Ethridge’s position was that “it seems clear that
Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia are not required to send
liaison representatives to assist the subsidiary group but may do so
if they wish. Whether or not they send liaison representatives
however the obligations of the countries concerned to assist in the
work of the subsidiary group remain the same.
“Under the SC resolution of April 18 the Commission was required without discretion to maintain a subsidiary group in the area ‘pending a new decision of the SC’. Thus in all respects the subsidiary group is an integral part of the Commission itself and is governed by the resolution of December 19 which created the Commission.” (501.BC Greece/ 5–547)
↩