Repeat Washington No. 188; London No. 16.

When Committee One met this morning it had before it the Greek resolution ¹⁷ which was tabled first and the New Zealand resolution providing that the item be not considered further (see my telegram No. 852 of December 10).? As soon as the Chairman had declared the debate open, Munro of New Zealand, who had agreed to carry the ball on behalf of the United Kingdom, asked to speak on a point of order. He declared that his delegation had submitted its resolution because of its concern at the grave political consequences of a vote on the substance of the issue. He requested that his resolution be discussed and voted on before any discussion of the Greek resolution. He said, however, that he was not attempting to prevent a full expression of Greek views.

2. Kyrou of Greece declared that he was thoroughly opposed to any plan for not discussing the issue. The New Zealand resolution would require a two-thirds majority under Rule 124 because it in effect reversed a decision of the General Assembly which, by inscribing an item on the agenda, intended the item to be discussed.

3. As prearranged by the United Kingdom delegation, Turkey, Pakistan, United States, Denmark, Sweden, Brazil and the Philippines spoke in favour, during the course of a somewhat confused discussion, of the New Zealand motion for priority submitted in the following terms:

"That the draft resolution contained in Document A/C.1/L.125 do have priority in discussion and vote over the draft resolution contained in Document A/C.1/L.124."

The representative of El Salvador supported Kyrou in his contention that a two-thirds majority was required and the U.S.S.R. and Poland made statements objecting to the terms of both the New Zealand resolution and the motion for priority.

4. Throughout this confused and at times heated discussion, Urrutia was in a most uncomfortable position as chairman of the committee. He declared that Kyrou was correct in saying that if the item were not discussed Munro's resolution "not to consider further" would require a two-thirds majority. He allowed a number of statements to be made on the New Zealand proposal for priority until the Norwegian representative moved under Rule 118 that the debate be closed. This motion of closure was adopted by 45 votes in favour, none against and 12 abstentions (including Yugoslavia and some Arab-Asian and Latin delegations).

5. The New Zealand proposal for priority, (which Kyrou declared at this point was "absolutely out of order",) was then adopted by 28 in favour, 15 against and 16 abstentions. (We voted for the proposal.) The Chairman said that the priority resolution had carried and then stated that a two-thirds majority would be required for the main New Zealand proposal if no debate were held. Kyrou asked that the vote be taken at once on the New Zealand resolution but the Chairman declared that as the general debate on the New Zealand resolution had opened and as he had speakers on his list, the general debate would proceed.

6. Three strong statements were then delivered by Munro of New Zealand, Lodge of the United States and Nutting of the United Kingdom in support of the New Zealand resolution. All three statements stressed the strategic aspect of the problem. Nutting declared that his delegation would not deal with questions of sovereignty because those questions were not raised by the New Zealand resolution. He did ask, however, that all delegations "solemnly ponder" on the consequences of the assembly intervening on the Cyprus question.

7. The Chairman's ruling that a two-thirds majority would not be required for the New Zealand resolution if a general debate were held had not been fully understood by most delegations and in their statements, Lodge and Nutting reiterated their view that a two-thirds majority would not be required. Kyrou spoke briefly near the end of the morning meeting to emphasize that such a majority was needed. At the close of the meeting, the Chairman made it clear that because the general debate had begun, a two-thirds majority would not be required for the New Zealand resolution, since before the vote the committee would have given some consideration to the Cyprus question.

8. Kyrou mentioned in his last statement that he would make a lengthy speech this afternoon. During this morning's discussion he had argued that the New Zealand resolution was intended to gag him while Munro had repeatedly reassured him that there would be a full opportunity to make a substantive statement. If, immediately after the vote on closure and before the vote on priority, Kyrou had proclaimed that he would not take part in the debate if the New Zealand proposal were adopted, he might have succeeded in securing a number of the votes of those who abstained. He failed - or was prevented by the Chairman's decision that no interventions would be permitted at this stage - to make this announcement and thus missed the opportunity of striking the United Kingdom plan of action at its weakest point. With this opportunity gone, Kyrou's subsequent declaration of his intention of speaking in the general debate was undoubtedly based on the knowledge that the debate on the New Zealand resolution would probably give him his only chance at this session to put the Greek case on the record.

9. On the other hand, Hethereby abandoned his main justification for requesting that Article 124 be applied to the voting on the main New Zealand resolution. In any case, as Kyrou knows, the Greek delegation can argue in plenary that the New Zealand resolution (if adopted in committee) is an important question requiring a two-thirds majority. This is now the chief worry of the United Kingdom delegation who will say in plenary that the resolution is procedural, requiring only a simple majority.