UNY.19.

1. The situation at meeting of Council on 3rd April [1] will
require very careful handling. You should keep in constant touch
by telephone.

2. Your general aim should be to press for full enquiry into all
facts affecting the disputes between Soviet Union and Persia,
either by means of an investigation by the Council as a whole or
by a Committee of which Australia is a member. During such an
investigation documents should be called for and witnesses
examined. No final decision of course should be taken by the
Council until investigation is completed. investigation is
essential whether Soviet Union or Persia (or both) is absent.

3. Telegrams show that there is a tendency for United Kingdom,
United States and, perhaps Persia to concentrate exclusive
attention upon the issue of a breach by Russia of the Tripartite
Treaty. [2] It must also be remembered, however, that the Council
was duly seized of the Persian matter before any question of
breach of Treaty arose. The Treaty aspect is, of course, important
and must be dealt with by the Council, but if a long-term and just
solution of the Persian problem is to be reached, the Treaty
question should be dealt with not in isolation but in conjunction
with the question of general Soviet/Persian relationship.

4. If the Soviet representative does not attend the meeting on 3rd
April the Council should be satisfied that due notice of meeting
has been given to Soviet Union by Secretary General. Presumably
Council would then proceed to hear report from Secretary General
on result of his enquiries addressed to Soviet and Persian
Governments. This report may bring out facts which may throw new
light on situation and may suggest need for further questioning.

If Persian Ambassador gives supplementary report this would
present further opportunity for questioning him and getting into
evidence relevant reports between him and his government.

5. It would appear that United States might then move resolution
requesting the Soviet to withdraw troops from Persia
unconditionally. Soviet representative if present may conceivably
argue there is no dispute and claim right to veto Council decision
on this question. [3] While this attitude might be in accordance
with four-Power claims at San Francisco, in our view as we stated
at San Francisco [4] no such veto exists under the Charter.

Whether or not Soviet representative is present point will
probably arise as to what countries are entitled to vote on United
States resolution of kind suggested above. As you know it is our
view that United States and United Kingdom are also parties to
dispute [5], but it would not be appropriate for Australia to take
lead in establishing that United Kingdom has no right to vote.