162. Editorial Note
On August 20, in a telephone conversation with Secretary Dulles, Ambassador Lodge raised the question of Oman. The memorandum of the telephone conversation includes the following exchange:
“Amb. Lodge began the conversation by asking if [sic] the Secretary if he thinks we ought to abstain on this Oman business. Lodge said it seemed to him it was kind of a legalistic thing and we will end up with nobody liking it. The Secretary said that was probably so, but in the light of our past practices and precedents we are making a big concession to the British to ignore those precedents and abstain; that in accordance with those precedents we ought to vote to inscribe. The Secretary said he had discussed this matter with the President; that while neither of them liked the abstention idea, they concluded that anything else would be worse.
“The Secretary said he had received last night a letter from Caccia which he read in part to Amb. Lodge. He also read a part of [Page 247] his reply to Caccia. Secretary discussed background and precedents in connection with the Guatemalan case, Greek case, and Formosan case.
“Amb. Lodge reiterated his feeling that its tone is legalistic and that the Arabs won’t like it and the British won’t like it. The Secretary said he appreciated this but that our Far East area is violent in its view that if we vote with the British against jurisdiction, countries like the Philippines, Thailand, etc., will be thrown back again into the Arab-Asian bloc. Amb. Lodge said he appreciated having the background as to the reasons for our decision to abstain.” (Eisenhower Library, Dulles Papers)
Later that day, the Security Council held two meetings to decide whether the Oman item ought to be placed on its formal agenda. The United Kingdom representative, supported by France, Australia, Cuba, and Colombia, voted against inscription. Iraq, the Philippines, Sweden, and the Soviet Union voted for inscription. The United States abstained and China did not vote. As a result of the 5 to 4 vote against inscription, the Oman question was not placed on the Council’s agenda. (U.N. documents S/PV. 783 and 784, August 20)