MOST IMMEDIATE

Security 172.

(1) At today's meeting of the Council the United States moved the
resolution given in Security 171. [1]

(2) The Soviet opposed this resolution because-
(A) Situations on Greek-Bulgarian and Greek-Yugoslav borders were
not before the Council and Bulgaria and Yugoslavia had had no
opportunity of presenting [their] views. Gromyko also made it
apparent that he would oppose the Netherlands resolution [2] for
this reason;

(B) The investigation Commission would normally be appointed when
charges had been made and prima facie substantiated. Therefore to
appoint the Commission proposed now would reflect adversely upon
Bulgaria and Yugoslavia;

(C) Any investigation should start with foreign interference in
Greece which was basis of aggressive policy of Greek Monarchists;

(D)Experience showed investigations tended to bury fundamental
issues.

(3) The United States said they would be prepared to confine their
resolution to the Greek-Albanian frontier to meet Soviet's
position.

However as the Soviet opposition was more fundamental, they would
maintain text as proposed.

(4) The Netherlands then deleted reference Yugoslavia and Bulgaria
in their resolution. Nevertheless the Soviet pointed out this
resolution as amended and United States resolution even if amended
would still reflect upon Albania who was innocent.

(5) The Secretary-General had intervened to reserve his right of
making enquiries in event of the United States resolution being
defeated.

(6) The President queried necessity for Australian resolution. [3]
In view of our contention that vexatious complaints should be
struck off and to ensure that the matter would be definitely
disposed of we maintained it.

(7) We agreed however to allow other resolutions to be put first
as this gave us the best prospect of eventual success and, for
reasons of domestic politics, the United States was very anxious
to have its resolution voted even if rejected.

(8) We also took this opportunity of stating that we agreed in
part with the Soviet's constitutional objections to Netherlands
and United States resolutions. We considered it a dangerous
precedent for the Council in course of its consideration of a
complaint, to decide to undertake investigation involving other
Governments than those originally concerned and who had not
participated in discussion.

(9) The Soviet resolution [4] was then put to vote in parts, all
parts being rejected by nine votes to two, Soviet and Poland
comprising the minority.

(10) The Netherlands resolution was also rejected by six votes to
three, Australia abstaining.

(11) Before the vote was taken on the United States resolution,
France challenged the President's ruling that the veto would apply
on the ground that subsidiary organisation under Article 29 was
being established and this article formed part of the charter on
procedure. In opposition to this view the United States quoted
Sponsoring Powers' declaration. [5] Australia strongly supported
France but on President's request France did not persist. We spoke
mainly for the sake of the record as it was clear from the start
that any challenge to ruling would fail.

(12) The United States resolution gained eight votes but was
vetoed by the Soviet. Australia abstained.

(13) Poland moved that the Council keep the situation in Greece
under observation and made plea for unanimous decision. We
immediately opposed, insisted that our own resolution be voted.

Poland was defeated nine to two.

(14) By various means Gromyko as President endeavoured to avoid a
vote on the Australian resolution but we maintained pressure and
asked for clear and definite decision to remove item from Agenda
as Ukrainian complaint was vexatious. Gromyko even contended that
as motive behind resolution was substantial vote was subject to
veto. We considered that veto only applied to what Council did and
not to what its members thought. The act we proposed taking was
clearly procedural. We maintained pressure through long debate.

Gromyko's last attempt was to give ruling that in view of previous
votes there was no need to vote on the Australian resolution. We
said we could accept this if he made it explicit that the sense of
previous votes was that Council by a vote of nine to two had
removed Ukranian item from the Agenda. Eventually we obtained such
statement and the last wor[d] of the argument establishing clearly
our point that the Council had deliberately rejected the Ukranian
item. We then withdrew our resolution.

(15) Council will next meet on Monday to consider the Soviet
request for statements regarding maintenance of troops in foreign
countries.