Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

FW 330/2–2550

Draft Position Paper Prepared by the Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs (Bancroft)¹

secret

[Washington,] March 3, 1950.

the problem

The problem is to determine the position which the United States representative should take in response to the suggestion by Secretary General Lie that a periodic meeting of the Security Council under Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Charter at which foreign ministers would be present should be held probably in Europe sometime prior to the next session of the General Assembly. The Secretary General has asked that Ambassador Gross and Mr. Ross discuss the matter informally with him and his advisers on Tuesday, March 7.

recommendations

That guidance be transmitted to our representatives along the following lines:

1. That Secretary General Lie should be informed that the United States would be willing to participate in a periodic meeting of the Security Council. We cannot of course commit ourselves definitely at that time that the Secretary of State will represent the United States. If the Secretary is unable to attend the United States will name a specially designated representative in accordance with Article 28 of the Charter. This would be in accord with our frequently announced readiness to discuss outstanding problems at any time in the proper forum.

2. That in consultations with the Secretary General the following points should be discussed, but in such a way as not to indicate that the affirmative response of the United States is in any way conditional.

a. We assume that each member of the Security Council would have an opportunity to suggest agenda items which could be discussed at the periodic meeting and that to the extent posssible the agenda would be agreed upon in advance of the meeting.

b. We would hope that every effort would be made that the meeting should not arouse great expectations in the public mind, but that it would be characterized as a meeting of modest aims and objectives designed to insure that no avenue is left unexplored in seeking methods by which pressing problems coming within the jurisdiction of the Security Council may be moved forward toward a settlement. The principal aims might well be to reach agreement among the members of the Council on the methods and procedures best adapted for making progress toward the solution of such problems. The impression should be avoided that such a meeting would be a last clear chance to find a modus vivendi with the Soviets on such outstanding problems as the control of atomic energy.

c. We think it important that if such a meeting is held the impression be avoided that it will result in the dramatic substantive resolution of outstanding problems. The purpose of the meeting should not be for propaganda purposes, domestic or international, but a bona fide business meeting to advance toward a solution of the problems it takes up.

3. In the discussion with Lie USUN should not raise the problem of Chinese representation. This is a problem which we should leave up to Lie as the proponent of the idea of a periodic meeting. If Lie raises the question USUN should indicate that it is a problem for Lie to work out and that our position remains unchanged.

4. If the idea of a periodic meeting appears to have some chance of acceptance, it might be well to consider the possibility of consultations among the permanent members of the Security Council in advance of the meeting to agree on its agenda. One possibility is that we should seek to develop the attitude in respect of the meeting that it is for the purpose of reviewing the work of the Security Council at the time of the completion of its first 500 regular meetings.

5. If a periodic meeting were held it would provide an opportunity for consultations between the foreign ministers or other specially designated representatives of the three Western Powers and the Soviet. These consultations could include matters which would be better suited for Four Power consultation than consideration in the Security Council and possibly matters not related to the United Nations.

1. Attached to a “Memorandum for the File,” dated March 17, 1950, and drafted by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Sandifer). This was the second of three draft position papers on this matter prepared on March 2, 3, and 4 respectively (those dated March 2 and March 4 also being attached to the March 17 memorandum). The substance of all three was close, changes being mainly in form and emphasis. The first paper contained an important reservation, however, which did not appear in either of the subsequent memoranda, to the effect that “… the periodic meeting would not be held while the Soviet Government is still absenting itself from the Security Council on the grounds of the Chinese Nationalist representation thereon. We assume that the Soviet Government would not agree to such a meeting while the Nationalists still represented China, and the United States could not of course modify its position so as to vote in favor of Communist representation in order to make the meeting possible.” (FW 330/2–2550) No memorandum on this subject was finalized, however, at the time that these drafts were under consideration.

   In the same “Memorandum for the File” of March 17 Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandifer recorded the following events and chronology:

   “This question was discussed at some length, on the initiative of Mr. Rusk, at the end of the Under Secretary’s staff meeting on Friday, March 5 [3?], with Messrs. Barber, Hare, Merchant, Thompson, Sandifer, Barrett, Tate, and McFall present. It was discussed again at a meeting in Mr. Sandifer’s office on Friday afternoon, March 3, attended by representatives of the same offices. It was discussed on Saturday with Mr. Rusk by Mr. Sandifer, Mr. Bancroft, and Miss Fosdick.

   “The matter was reported in some detail to the Under Secretary’s staff meeting on Monday, March 6. On the basis of this discussion and a later discussion with Mr. Rusk, it was decided that Mr. Gross should take an exploratory attitude in discussing the matter with Mr. Lie. Without indicating any position on the part of the United States, he should endeavor to develop Mr. Lie’s thinking in the matter and ascertain what he had in mind taking up specifically and what he considered to be the possibilities and objectives of such a periodic meeting of the Council.” (330/2–2550)

   The persons named in the first quoted paragraph were: Willard F. Barber, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs; Raymond A. Hare, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs; Livingston T. Merchant, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs; Llewellyn E. Thompson, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs; Durward V. Sandifer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs; Edward W. Barrett, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs; Jack B. Tate, Deputy Legal Adviser; Jack K. McFall, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations; Harding F. Bancroft, Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs; and Dorothy Fosdick, member of the Policy Planning Staff.