795.00/7–1051: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
59. Re Korea. At meeting here yesterday afternoon with Jebb (UK) and LaCoste (France) present, Jebb raised problem of Korea, asking what step would follow if armistice should be arranged. Gross said we have been thinking UC might report armistice to GA and ask GA to take note and approve. UC thereafter might send copy of report to SC. He explained that we prefer GA to be action body because (a) we think it undesirable to put Korea back on SC agenda; (b) post-armistice, UC reports, would over next few months undoubtedly deal with economic, political, and other matters as well as military, and GA more indicated for this task; (c) in SC, USSR would probably have to raise Chinese rep question since it holds that SC is illegally constituted without Peking Govt; GA already has its seven member committee on Chinese rep, so point could be ruled out of order in GA.
As for GA’s simply noting and approving, Gross pointed out intolerable military situation that would arise if armistice agreement had to be signed in field ad referendum to UN body.
Jebb emphatically disagreed with Gross thesis that GA was indicated over SC and said he would recommend otherwise at once to London. He said, (a) SC created UC and so UC reported to it; (b) if UC did not, there would be widespread accusation SC being destroyed and GA put in its place under uniting for peace resolution; (c) he did not fear Chinese rep matter in SC since as soon as USSR vetoed, case would go, and properly, to GA.
Jebb suggested USSR position on this point be ascertained. If it had no objection to SC receiving armistice agreement report, he felt reasons for using SC overwhelming.
LaCoste declared he had no instructions but was sure his govt would favor course which would build up SC authority.