Reference: Our Tel 2575 Nov 22.
Repeat Washington (Priority), London, NATO Paris, Paris (Information).
By Bag Cairo, Beirut, Tel Aviv, Delhi, Karachi, Colombo, Belgrade, Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Rio, Bogota, Djakarta from London.

Owing the pressure of events we were unable to report fully on developments here during the past few days. It might be useful in this telegram to complete the record concerning consultations behind the scenes and also to give some assessment of the results obtained in the Assembly. I may say at once that whatever success was achieved was largely through the efforts of the delegations of Norway, Canada, USA, Brazil and Egypt. As regards the Egyptians, undoubtedly the earlier consultation with them concerning the Syrian item helped to create confidence in their relations with the other key delegations.

2. The Egyptians were particularly anxious that the debate on the UNEF report should be brief and uncontroversial. They undertook to persuade their Arab colleagues not to intervene, unless provoked, and not to try to block the proposals for financing the force. The Egyptians succeeded in this endeavour and in the actual voting all the Arab delegations abstained, except Jordan, which voted in favour of the resolution. Prior to the vote we had understood that Iraq and Tunisia would also vote in favour and one of the leading advisers in the Iraqi delegation later assured us that this would have happened if Shabandar had not been absent. The Tunisians might have been influenced somewhat by the fact that the Israelis, who voted before them, voted in favour of the resolution. In any event, the Arab abstentions should not be interpreted as an expression of disapproval of either the continuation of UNEF or the method of its financing. The main reason for the abstention was political, the fact that UNEF is deployed only on one side of the armistice demarcation line. It is not without significance, we suggest, that Syria voted with the other Arab delegations even though the Soviet bloc opposed the resolution. Again, we think that the Assembly treatment of the Syrian item helped to persuade the Syrians not to vote the Soviet line.

3. As we explained earlier one of our main objectives had been to include among the co-sponsors delegations which for one reason or another made much mischief at the Eleventh Session when the question of financing the Force was under consideration in the Fifth Committee. This explains why Uruguay and Costa Rica were included and why we worked so hard to win over the Spaniards. After the resolution was tabled we did succeed in having Spain added to the list of co-sponsors, making a total of 21, and effectively neutralizing the Spanish delegation, which last year advanced some most impractical ideas for financing the Force. The Norwegians deserve most credit for persuading the Spaniards but we agreed to add a phrase to our statement which helped to keep the Spanish delegation quiet during the debate yesterday. This addition was made at the end of the fifth paragraph, so that this final sentence read: "We know that further assistance has been offered and, of course, other voluntary contributions in the future are not excluded."

4. The inclusion of Spain among the co-sponsors, together with four Latin Americans, probably helped to head off the wildcat revolt which Arenales of Guatemala stirred up among the Latins on November 21. It is true that the USA, both here and from Washington, exerted strong pressure on the Latin Americans to support the resolution and, in particular, not to seek a postponement in order to consider alternative methods for financing the force. Nevertheless, some of the credit for breaking up the Latin American move for postponement must go to the Brazilians and in the later stages, to Peru. We and the Norwegians kept in close touch with Freitas-Valle and Bernades of Brazil to encourage them in their efforts to head off their colleagues from Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Mexico and Paraguay. Particularly the Guatemalan, Chilean and Mexican representatives have earned themselves considerable disfavour for their part in this exercise. The Mexican attitude was most disappointing in view of Nervo's traditional pro-UN attitude.

5. In the voting the Latin Americans were split, Chile and Ecuador joined the Soviet bloc in voting against the resolution. The USA delegation believed that the Chilean either acted against his instructions or misled his government into believing that the move for postponement would succeed, thereby creating confusion in the Chilean position. The representative of Ecuador tried unsuccessfully to have his instructions changed and he seemed genuinely unhappy to find himself in such bad company. El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and Panama abstained. Afterward the representative of Panama showed some dismay when it was pointed out to him that as a prospective member of the Security Council, Panama had not shown much responsibility in its attitude toward the continuation of UNEF, one of the principal peacemaking activities of the UN. All of the Latins, whether in the opposition or abstaining groups, spoke strongly in favour of continuing UNEF and based their position in the voting on their lack of concurrence for the method of financing the Force. Notwithstanding the financial difficulties which face many of the Latin American States, it was difficult to sympathize with them when it could be shown that their total share of the UNEF assessment would be relatively so small.

6. Ethiopia, Malaya and Nepal were among those who abstained. The Nepalese had indicated before the vote that they would follow India but they may have been shaken by some of the Latin American arguments concerning the burden which the assessment principle would place on small countries. In addition, the Indians did very little to promoting the success of the UNEF proceedings. They were, of course, preoccupied with Kashmir and at an earlier stage with disarmament. In fact, yesterday morning Lall showed for a short time some interest in whittling away the assessment principle in order to placate the Guatemalans and others. We succeeded in dissuading him, but particularly by adding the phrase mentioned in paragraph 3. The Ethiopians seemed distressed because, being without instructions, they could not support the resolution which had the support of Liberia and Ghana. Perhaps if there had been more time the Ethiopians could have been persuaded. China also abstained and this was a surprise but presumably the Chinese attitude was based on financial considerations.

7. On the whole, the voting was a little better than we had expected. Our target was 50 votes in favour. Taking into account the attitudes which have been described in this telegram we are reasonably satisfied with the outcome of the debate. This view is shared by the others who worked with us and by such delegations as the UK, Australia and NZ, most of the Western Europeans, and our partners participating in UNEF. After the vote we were able to speak briefly to the Secretary-General, Burns and Bunche, who all expressed satisfaction. There is even a remaining hope that, in view of Sobolev's very careful and quiet statement, the USSR might eventually pay its share of the UNEF assessment.

[R.A.] MACKAY