339. Memorandum of a Conversation, Secretary Dulles’ Suite, Waldorf Astoria, New York, October 13, 1956, 10:30–12:30 a.m.1
USDel/MC/40
SUBJECT
- Minutes of the Tripartite US–UK–French Foreign Ministers Meeting
PARTICIPANTS
- U.S. Side
- The Secretary
- Ambassador Lodge
- Mr. Herman Phleger
- Mr. Francis Wilcox
- Mr. William Rountree
- Mr. J. Barco
- Mr. W.R. Tyler
- Mr. J. Ludlow
- Mr. W. Macomber
- U.K.
Side
- Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Foreign Minister
- Sir Pierson Dixon
- Sir Harold Beeley
- Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice
- Mr. Ramsbotham
- Mr. Adam Watson
- France
- Mr. Christian Pineau, Foreign Minister
- Ambassador H. Alphand
- Mr. Cornut-Gentille
- Mr. Pierre Ordonneau
- Mr. J. Roux
- Mr. C. de Margerie
Sir Pierson Dixon said that the British wished to propose a revision in the text of the resolution,2 by incorporating three paragraphs from the Preamble of the original UK-French Resolution.
The Secretary asked whether the UK and France had decided that the vote on the Resolution which they were introducing today should be taken paragraph by paragraph. Mr. Selwyn Lloyd felt that the pros and cons should be discussed, and the Secretary explained the disadvantage of a vote on a single resolution: this would run the risk of a veto which would apply also to the six principles on which unanimous agreement had already been reached. Sir Pierson Dixon said that the trouble with voting solely on the six principles was that we would be left with just the principles by themselves, “which would not be at all a good result”. Sir Harold Beeley commented that the UK expected the Resolution to get nine votes, and that it would perhaps even not be vetoed. The Secretary said he thought that a veto was about as certain as anything would be. Mr. Lloyd said that the UK and French delegations planned vigorous action after the present meeting, to try to get the other members of the Council to accept their Resolution. The Secretary inquired whether this included the Russians, and Mr. Lloyd did not at the moment have a ready answer. Mr. Pineau observed that to get nine votes, it would be necessary to drop the three paragraphs which the British had just proposed to add to the text, and Mr. Lloyd agreed to do so.
There followed a long and detailed discussion on various paragraphs of the draft, particularly with regard to the paragraph on acceptance by Egypt of the principle of cooperation with SCUA, and the last paragraph of the text of the Resolution. During this discussion, both Mr. Pineau and Mr. Lloyd referred at various times to the political difficulties which beset them at home. Mr. Pineau said in particular that he could not accept anything in a resolution which resembled acceptance by him now of a specific negotiating procedure for the future, otherwise he would face a tempest in the National Assembly. He said that the Secretary General of the United Nations was fully aware of this and indeed had said to Dr. Fawzi in Mr. Pineau’s presence that it was now up to him to make concrete suggestions on procedures for future negotiation. For his part, said [Page 716] Mr. Pineau, any language relating to this would have been restricted to something like “pursuing exploratory exchanges of views”.
After the revised text had been finalized, the Secretary asked Mr. Dixon and Mr. Pineau what they thought would happen if the Resolution were vetoed, as seemed probable. He said he wished to discuss a little more the question of a vote paragraph by paragraph. Mr. Pineau said that he was not in favor of this, because the Soviet Union would veto individual paragraphs and leave the rest. The Secretary observed that it would be a calamity, [if?] as a result of the way in which the Resolution were presented, we were to lose the benefit of the unanimous agreement on the six principles which had been achieved. Mr. Lloyd said he rather agreed with the Secretary, and that it would be better to make sure that the principles were voted, and then the proposals on implementation might be vetoed without affecting the principles. Mr. Pineau said he agreed and that a vote might be taken on paragraphs one through six of the text of the Resolution. The Secretary raised the possibility of dividing the text up into two parts, but Mr. Lloyd said he preferred sounding out the sentiment of the other members of the Council on the Resolution as a whole.
The Secretary said that support from some members, e.g. Iran and Peru would be more likely if they knew that if the Resolution were vetoed, there would be measures taken at least to salvage the principles.
In conclusion, Mr. Lloyd suggested that the three Foreign Ministers meet again at 4:00 p.m. to consider the results of the efforts of the UK and France to convince other delegations. The Secretary urged strongly that they should talk with Dr. Fawzi and the Secretary General of the United Nations, as a matter of courtesy. It was also agreed that there would be an 18 power meeting at 4:30 p.m. and that the public Council meeting should be at 5:00 p.m. instead of 3:00 p.m.