SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 20 JUNE UN SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING

Created: 6/21/1954

OCR scan of the original document, errors are possible

TO:

Central Intelligence

Director (Intelligence)

Significance of theune UN Security Council Meeting

Tbeune UN Security Council meeting on Guatemala can be expected to bave serious repercussions among members of tbe United Nations; strong neutralist and anti-colonial views are held by various smaller members. Communist propaganda on tbe issue can be expected to continue its vigorous attempt toa recognized Soviet objective' the moral isolation of the

US.

The Guatemalan complaint to the UN Security Council onune appears to'be an attempt to circumvent themachinery provided by7 Reciprocal Assistance Treaty and to gain wider propaganda opportunities against the United States. The moveogical one for Guatemala since the Arbenz government was aware of the effort to mobilizemember Organization of American States (OAS) for action against Guatemala.

In an apparent attempt to rebut possible charges that Guatemala Ignored completely the regional remedies available, the Arbenz government simultaneously notified thePeace Commission. This body, scheduled to meetours onune,emi-autonoroous five-member OASnow headed by Mexico's pro-Guatemalan Luis Quintanilla.

Tbeune emergency Security Council meeting endedunanimous adoptionild resolution, Introducedcolling for "immediate termination of any actioncause bloodshed" and requesting UN members to refrainassistance to any such action." Soviet veto ofBrazilian-Colombian resolution callingby the OAS defeated plans to have tbe crisisregional

In tho Security Council support for the Brazilian-Colombian resolution, which the United States initiated, cane froa ten countries: Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Lebanon, New Zealand, Turkey, China, France, Great Britain and the United States. Only the USSR opposed.

Action by the General Assembly would be possible under the "Uniting for Peace" resolutionut would involve time-consuming procedures runningeek or two. Among members of the United Nationshole, moreover, support for the Brazilian-Colombian resolution probably would not be so large as in the Security Council.

Few specific reactions by influential powers on important voting blocs in the United Nations have thus far been reported.

British Reaction:

Britain appears unwilling to volunteer any action with regard to Guatemala that might cause an unfavorable reaction in its adjacent colony, British Honduras, or involveituation likely to cause further friction In Western relations with the Soviet Union.

There is reason to believe that London is not seriously concernedommunist influence in the Guatemalanand that it does not believe the Guatemalan armya threat to neighboring territories. The Britishat Guatemala City has expressed these views to the Foreign -Office, as well as the conclusion that the recent armsdo not appreciably increase the army's capabilities.

London's reluctance to give the United States strong public support on the Guatemalan issue is likely to beby British public indignation over the American request for active surveillance of British flag vessels suspected of carrying arms to Guatemala.

French Reaction:

France will probably try to avoid any action on thequestion that would further antagonize the USSR. Premier Hendes-France is eager, for domestic political reasons, to demonstrate French independence of action in international matters at the same time he wishes to assure the United States that his government wants to maintain its Western ties. TheFrench resolution in the Security Council illustrated this attitude.

regret"

Latin American Reaction:

Official Latin American reaction to the Security Council appeal and to the "invasion" is scattered and incomplete. Brazil's and Colombia's action in the Securitr Councilthat they will support Washington. The Venezuelan foreignhowever, refused to comment when approached by the American ambassador. Tbe only other official indicatlona have come from Mexico and El Salvador both of which intend toa "neutral" position. r comment has come chiefly from exile or left-wing groups ir Latin America and cannot be taken as indicative of opinion at large.

Arab-Asian Reaction;

The Arab-Asian bloc's anti-colonial bias will Influence its reactions to the Issue. The line to be taken by the more volatile members of this bloc was foreshadowed In an Egyptian home service radio broadcast which summed up the situation asarning to the Western countries regarding the zones which they believe are subjected to the* or to their complete

Soviet Propaganda Reaction:

Soviet propaganda before and since the Security Council meeting has sought to support the charge made then by Soviet delegate Tsarapkln that the invasion was long planned and sponsored by the ruling circles of the United States. The Guatemalan situation is being exploitedrime example of American imperialism.

Tht conflict *as unleashed, according to Pravda, because "aggresslvt American forces are trying in every way possible to exacerbate the International situation in the face offavorableeaceful solution in Asiaeneral easing of international tension."

Prospectsull OAS meeting:

The outlookull OAS meeting, which the United States has hoped to convoke for discussion of the Guatemalan threat;is now obscure. Previous Latin American reluctance to name Guatemala specificallyhreat to the hemisphere has probably been Intensified by Guatemala's current status as "victim of an Invasion." It seems likely that many OAS members

will Insist that any OAS meeting discuss the charges of American, Honduran and Nicaraguan aggression against Guatemala as well as the original case against Guatemala.

Assistant Dlreciw Current Intelligence

Orig: WD DIV 8

Original document.

---

---