MOST IMMEDIATE

Your 792. [1] Two Year Term.

I appreciate your problem on term of office but it is quite clear
from journal [2] that rules were not approved prior to election
and elections were not based on their acceptance. In fact rules
will not be finally approved until next session. We were certainly
not informed that election was to be held on basis now suggested
and according to journal, page 51 [3], provisional rules of
procedure were referred to committee for report within eight days
only two days before election. The remarks made by the chairman
immediately prior to election, quoted on page 62 [4], cannot be
held to be interpreted as an acceptance of the provisional rules
as a basis for election.

In the Charter, which is binding, the words one year and two year
mean exactly what they say and Yugoslav interpretation is quite
ridiculous.

It is quite plain that apparent decision not to hold April session
is in conflict with Supplementary Rules (a), (b) and (c) and
Supplementary Rule (s) can have no greater force in changed
circumstances. A possible solution is to regard September Meeting
as second part of the first regular session in obedience to
Supplementary Rule (a) and (b) or as the first regular session the
present meeting being regarded as organisational in character.

It should be made clear that we are not pressing for term of
office greater than minimum stated in Charter, namely, two years
or 24 months. Opposition to what you call 'lame duck' provision is
difficult to understand. In fact though it is contrary to Rule 78
there are positive advantages in giving countries a few months
warning of their membership of Security Council in order that they
can make necessary arrangements for continuous representation. In
these circumstances you should exhaust every reasonable method of
assuring that the Charter is carried into effect.

I entirely disagree with your suggestion that the point is a
technical one. It is simply an endeavour to have the Charter
carried into effect.