178 Department of External Affairs to Australian Delegation, United Nations

Cablegram [UNY]302 CANBERRA, 25 October 1946


Your 554.

Attlee and Truman statements [1] would almost appear as though criticism of exercise of veto had originated with them. The long fight at San Francisco is conveniently forgotten. In this connection you will have seen Dominion Office telegram on veto and our reply. [2] Please ensure that in Ambassador's statement a full review is made of the persistent efforts by Minister at San Francisco to modify the veto provisions and later at Security Council to restrict the exercise of the veto.

2. It should be stressed that Australian fears, for which we were called 'perfectionists' at San Francisco, have been more than justified, even in opinion of many of those who, at San Francisco, resisted us.

3. Any suggestion that matter should not be discussed in Assembly should be strongly resisted reference being made to Article 10 and San Francisco struggle for it.

1 In the House of Commons on 24 October, Attlee had urged that the veto be reviewed 'with a view to restraining it to its original intent', and Truman, addressing the General Assembly the previous day, had declared that the Security Council should be used' as a means for promoting settlement of disputes as well as for airing them. The exercise of neither veto rights nor majority rights can make peace secure'.

2 Document 172.

[AA:A1838/2, 852/10/5, i]