216 Australian Delegation, United Nations, to Department of External Affairs
Cablegram UN4, NEW YORK, 6 January 194
1. Assembly Interim Committee held inaugural meeting today. U.S.S.R., Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine and Byelo-Russia not represented.
2. Committee elected Nervo (Mexico) chairman, Langenhove (Belgium) Vice-Chairman, Entezam (Iran) Rapporteur.
3. After brief general discussion of Assembly Resolution creati[ng] Committee, sub-committee was appointed to examine provisional rules of procedure prepared by Secretariat. These closely follow Assembly Resolution and rules and are non-controversial.
4. Chairman also drew attention to paragraph 2(C) of the Resolution. (Consideration of methods to give effect to Articles 11(1) and 13(1)A of Charter.) He suggested that Governments might be invited to submit proposals for consideration of Committee.
5. Only substantive item on Agenda was the problem of voting in the Security Council (Assembly Resolution of 21st November 1947). Several Delegations expressed view that general debate at this stage would not be useful and suggested that time should be afforded for Governments to submit proposals. United States tabled resolution requesting members to submit proposals on or before 15th March, such proposals to be circulated and Committee to take matter up when all members desiring to do so have submitted proposals. United States Resolution will be discussed at next meeting January 9th.
6. Atmosphere today was very lifeless and few Delegates appeared to have clear idea as to how Committee should proceed. Most Delegates are permanent Representatives in New York and clearly had no inclination merely to repeat previous debates in Assembly. There is thus opportunity to put forward constructive proposals both on veto and on Articles 11(1) and 13(1)A. Glad your views as to any immediate suggestions we should make.
7. United States Resolution is of course without prejudice to consideration of other questions by Committee in the interval. United States view is that it would be inadvisable to create work for the Committee artificially. In this connection we understand United States assessment is that Korean question is likely to come before the Committee if as is assumed Korean Commission is unable to make progress.