Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

IO Files: US/A/135

Minutes of Informal Meeting of Certain Political Officers of the United States Delegation Staff of Advisers

secret

[New York,] November 13, 1946.

Participants:	Messrs. Sandifer
	Dawson
	Wadsworth
	Raynor
	Hall
	Allen
	Popper

An informal meeting was held on November 13, to discuss the prospects of election for our slate for the Economic and Social Council, which we felt to be growing dimmer as a result of developments during the last few days.⁴⁸

It was pointed out that there was a danger that the Netherlands and New Zealand might not be elected as the candidacies of Yugoslavia and Lebanon for reelection were pushed, particularly since the Arab States might not support the Netherlands. It was also noted that no Latin American State might be elected if the American representatives did not reach an agreement on the Latin American candidate they should all support. The desirability of such an agreement from our point of view was stressed. Some disagreement was expressed with the conduct of the Uruguayans in the campaign, first because of their apathy and later because of their tendency to seek outside support by agreeing to vote for candidates not on our slate.

Those present agreed that it was of first importance that we secure all possible support for the Netherlands, New Zealand and Turkey. It was agreed specifically that the Uruguayans should be approached with this in view, in the light of their apparent commitment to the Lebanon. It was remarked that some other Latin American States might have made a similar commitment in seeking support for their candidacies. It was noted that the only way in which our favored candidates—including, of course, ourselves—could be supported under these circumstances would be for such Latin American States to drop the single Soviet satellite included on our slate and to vote for the Lebanon instead.

There was considerable discussion of our attitude toward the Lebanese candidacy. Mr. Wadsworth explained the view of the Arab States that one of their number should be represented on each United Nations Council and stressed the special importance of ECOSOC in linking the Arab States with the United Nations and assisting in the advancement of our Middle Eastern policies. He suggested that the Arab States might have a better claim on our support for one seat than the Latin Americans for their fourth seat on the Council, even though Syria was on our slate for the Security Council.

Mr. Sandifer and Ambassador Dawson remarked that it would be impossible even to intimate that we would not support a fourth Latin American State for election to ECOSOC. Mr. Sandifer also stated that while the Arab States should have proper representation in the organization as a whole, this did not mean that an Arab State must necessarily sit constantly on ECOSOC. It was noted that the Arab representation on the ECOSOC commissions was very satisfactory. Mr. Sandifer also stated that the basic decision on the slate had been made in the Department earlier, and that no changes in the slate could be considered here. Reference was also made to the undesirability of reelecting any member of ECOSOC other than the Big Five.

On this matter Mr. Wadsworth said that the Arab State representatives regarded the Lebanon as the best candidate to act in their common interest, but that if the reelection feature were the only undesirable element in the situation the Arab States would probably agree to substitute Egypt. As to our attitude with regard to the Lebanese candidacy, Mr. Wadsworth said that he was informing the Arabs that we were not supporting Lebanon but were not opposing its election. He was opposed to the exercise of any pressure in this connection.⁴⁹

48. This refers to the growing success of the Lebanese candidacy for election to the Economic and Social Council (see Villard memorandum of November 8, p. 222) and the dimming prospects for the election of Uruguay to the Latin American vacancy on that organ. The Latin American candidacy had been subject to a growing confusion arising out of the contending aspirations of three other candidates—Argentina, Mexico, and Venezuela, and the apparent inability to agree upon one candidate. The confusion was further heightened by a vigorous campaign by Argentina; and by the apparent withdrawal on October 31 of Uruguay (despite Uruguayan disclaimers). In a caucus of Latin American delegations for a further discussion of Economic and Social Council candidacies on November 13 Mexico and Venezuela received six votes each, Argentina four votes and Uruguay none. (See IO Files, documents US/A/94, 101, 103, 113 and 132)

    The Uruguayan situation was a source of anxiety for the United States Delegation. Ambassador Dawson had minuted Senator Austin on November 1 regarding the problem: “Unfortunately, the Uruguayans have been lamentably inactive in pushing Uruguay’s candidacy in spite of the strong encouragement we have given them. … I inquired of Blanco [Juan Carlos Blanco, Head of the Uruguayan Delegation] why he or members of his delegation did not take a more active part in furthering Uruguay’s candidacy, adding that, as he knew, we had gone to considerable lengths in making known our sympathetic attitude. After some urging on my part, he said that he would talk with some of the other Latin American delegates and particularly with those who are members of the Washington diplomatic corps and consequently his close personal friends.” (IO Files, document US/A/96) In reporting a conversation with Senor Blanco that took place on November 4 Ambassador Dawson informed Senator Austin: “In the course of our conversation, Blanco intimated that the United States had not taken a sufficiently strong stand in backing Uruguay’s candidacy. I took sharp issue with him and asked him if he were not aware of our circular telegram [see circular telegram of October 1 p. —]. He said that he knew of this but that he thought we could have gone further, particularly here in New York, in inducing countries claiming prior commitments to support Uruguay. … I told him that he must realize that we cannot impose a candidacy or exert pressure and that it was my opinion that we had gone considerably further in the case of Uruguay than we could probably do normally.” (IO Files, document US/A/103)

49. On November 19 the members and staff of the Delegation were informed in a Delegation memorandum dated November 18 that the Latin American delegations at a morning meeting on November 18 had definitely settled the question of a Latin American candidacy for ECOSOC with a unanimous decision to support Venezuela, after Mexico had withdrawn (IO Files, document US/A/149).