Ask the Scholar
Page 115 of 436
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
J. 333305-M N -State
Galley
114
UNCORRECTED GALLEY PROOF
the same footing as all other member states as regards decisions in-
volved in peaceful settlement of disputes. This, I pointed out, relates
only to the Council's decisions to investigate a situation or dispute
and to determine whether or not its continuation is likely to lead to a
threat to the peace, whether or not to call upon the parties to a dispute
to settle their differences by peaceful means of their own choice, and
whether or not to make a recommendation to the parties. The rule
of unanimity, I made clear, would be maintained as regards decisions
relating to admission, suspension and expulsion of members; restora-
tion of privileges of suspended members; determination of a threat to
the peace or breaches of the peace; the taking of measures to maintain
or restore the peace; approval of special agreements for the provision
of armed forces and all matters relating to regulation of armaments.
I summarized for the Ambassador the results of our discussions
with numerous individuals and groups in this country and with repre-
sentatives of other United Nations. I said that in all of these dis-
cussions the question of voting inevitably came up. As a result
we
have become even more convinced than we were at the time of the
Dumbarton Oaks discussions that in order to obtain whole-hearted
support for the projected organization, both in our country and in
the smaller United Nations, it is necessary for the great powers to
accept at least this much of a modification in the otherwise general
unanimity rule.
The Ambassador repeated the arguments which he has so often
given us: that what the small countries are primarily interested in is
peace; that peace is unobtainable unless unity prevails among the
great powers; and that unity among great powers will inevitably be
impaired if the unanimity rule is not maintained throughout in the
voting procedures of the Security Council. He said that the differ-
ence between our two positions, as he saw it, lay in the fact that we
are trying to draw a line between the various functions of the Council
for the purpose of applying different voting procedures, whereas
their position is that no distinction whatever should be made between
the
functions. After all, he said, the very first decision to be made by
the Council-i. e. whether a particular situation or dispute is of such
a nature that its continuation may result in a threat to the peace-is
of such great importance that, if there is a cleavage of opinion on
that question between the great powers, the whole condition of unity
among them will be impaired. He thought that we were emphasizing
too much moral, juridical, and organizational issues, and paying too
little attention to the political side of the question.
I replied that we were, of course, immensely interested in the moral
and juridical aspects of the problem, but that we, no less than they,
were fully conscious of the political side of the question. We want the
organization to succeed. It is clear to us that the organization will
succeed only if the great powers have confidence in each other and act
in unity. But it is equally clear that it is also essential to the success
of the organization that the smaller powers have confidence in the
great powers. These are basic political issues, and the real question is
whether confidence will be better promoted by: (a) insistence on the
part of the great powers that they must retain a veto privilege through-
out in any disputes in which they themselves might be involved; or (b)
a system under which they would be willing to place themselves, at
least as regards judicial or quasi-judicial procedures, on an equal
Page data
- Page
- 115
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 796baab4c7512e41
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 750433
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "750433",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750433",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Foreign Affairs File, 1940-1953: \"Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945\" (galley proofs, Part I)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750433",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750433/750433-01-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750433/750433-01-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750433/750433-01-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 436,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "750433",
"label": "Foreign Affairs File, 1940-1953: \"Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945\" (galley proofs, Part I)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750433"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "750433",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750433",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Foreign Affairs File, 1940-1953: \"Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945\" (galley proofs, Part I)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750433",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750433/750433-01-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750433/750433-01-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750433/750433-01-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 436,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750433",
"naId": 750433,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 115,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750433/750433-01-115.jpg",
"mediaId": "796baab4c7512e41",
"ocrText": "J. 333305-M N -State\nGalley\n114\nUNCORRECTED GALLEY PROOF\nthe same footing as all other member states as regards decisions in-\nvolved in peaceful settlement of disputes. This, I pointed out, relates\nonly to the Council's decisions to investigate a situation or dispute\nand to determine whether or not its continuation is likely to lead to a\nthreat to the peace, whether or not to call upon the parties to a dispute\nto settle their differences by peaceful means of their own choice, and\nwhether or not to make a recommendation to the parties. The rule\nof unanimity, I made clear, would be maintained as regards decisions\nrelating to admission, suspension and expulsion of members; restora-\ntion of privileges of suspended members; determination of a threat to\nthe peace or breaches of the peace; the taking of measures to maintain\nor restore the peace; approval of special agreements for the provision\nof armed forces and all matters relating to regulation of armaments.\nI summarized for the Ambassador the results of our discussions\nwith numerous individuals and groups in this country and with repre-\nsentatives of other United Nations. I said that in all of these dis-\ncussions the question of voting inevitably came up. As a result\nwe\nhave become even more convinced than we were at the time of the\nDumbarton Oaks discussions that in order to obtain whole-hearted\nsupport for the projected organization, both in our country and in\nthe smaller United Nations, it is necessary for the great powers to\naccept at least this much of a modification in the otherwise general\nunanimity rule.\nThe Ambassador repeated the arguments which he has so often\ngiven us: that what the small countries are primarily interested in is\npeace; that peace is unobtainable unless unity prevails among the\ngreat powers; and that unity among great powers will inevitably be\nimpaired if the unanimity rule is not maintained throughout in the\nvoting procedures of the Security Council. He said that the differ-\nence between our two positions, as he saw it, lay in the fact that we\nare trying to draw a line between the various functions of the Council\nfor the purpose of applying different voting procedures, whereas\ntheir position is that no distinction whatever should be made between\nthe\nfunctions. After all, he said, the very first decision to be made by\nthe Council-i. e. whether a particular situation or dispute is of such\na nature that its continuation may result in a threat to the peace-is\nof such great importance that, if there is a cleavage of opinion on\nthat question between the great powers, the whole condition of unity\namong them will be impaired. He thought that we were emphasizing\ntoo much moral, juridical, and organizational issues, and paying too\nlittle attention to the political side of the question.\nI replied that we were, of course, immensely interested in the moral\nand juridical aspects of the problem, but that we, no less than they,\nwere fully conscious of the political side of the question. We want the\norganization to succeed. It is clear to us that the organization will\nsucceed only if the great powers have confidence in each other and act\nin unity. But it is equally clear that it is also essential to the success\nof the organization that the smaller powers have confidence in the\ngreat powers. These are basic political issues, and the real question is\nwhether confidence will be better promoted by: (a) insistence on the\npart of the great powers that they must retain a veto privilege through-\nout in any disputes in which they themselves might be involved; or (b)\na system under which they would be willing to place themselves, at\nleast as regards judicial or quasi-judicial procedures, on an equal"
}