501.BC/7–948
Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of United Nations Political Affairs (Popper) to the Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs (Rusk)
Subject: Developments in the Department on the Slates Problem
At a Membership Team1 meeting July 8 we were able to get a clearer idea than we have previously had about the thinking of the Geographic Offices2 on the elections to the Security Council and ECOSOC in the fall. You will receive the minutes of the meeting and other memoranda on the subject in the near future.
It seems to me to be important for us to decide how far we should try to push our views as to the adequacy of the Geographic Office candidates from the organizational rather than the political point of view. It is natural and proper for them to think in terms of satisfying their clients and electing strong supporters of the United States to the Councils. On our side I think we ought at least to raise for higher authority the organizational considerations involved, particularly since they may well be the determining factors in switching the election one way or another. I have in mind particularly the mistake we made in opposing the election of the Ukraine to the Security Council last year. While this was defensible on political grounds, it did violence to organizational practice (geographic balance). I think it will be agreed that we should, if possible, avoid such a situation in the future.
As the attached list of Council members and candidates shows, we will be confronted this year with a tendency to support the concentration of Council seats in the hands of a few middle powers, thus creating a quasi monopoly for them in the Councils which in my opinion is sure to be distasteful to the smaller countries. I call your attention particularly to the following:
- 1.
- The Belgians tell us that the five Western Union Powers will caucus around July 20 and that Belgium is anxious to have the Netherlands succeed her on the Security Council. Our support is asked. EUR proposes to state, in substance, that the Netherlands would be our first choice for election provided it could be elected. From the organizational point of view, we in UNP feel that support for the Netherlands would be unfortunate. The Netherlands served a one-year term on the Security Council ending December 31, 1946, and Belgium was elected to replace her. Now Belgium’s term on the Security Council is [Page 100] expiring, while the Netherlands’ term on ECOSOC also expires. The two countries apparently envisage a switch from Council to Council. We think that the implication that Belgium and the Netherlands between them should monopolize a Security Council seat is unfortunate and should be opposed. We feel that Norway would be a much more satisfactory candidate. Hayden Raynor3 himself recognizes that the election of the Netherlands would be difficult because of the Indonesian situation and the rotation factor. The issue will be forced by EUR in order to present our views to the Western Union bloc before the July 20 meeting, and I think our position should be cleared up as rapidly as possible.
- 2.
- Reference was also made in the Membership Team meeting to the possibility of having Brazil succeed Colombia on the Security Council and Turkey succeed Syria. Brazil left the Security Council at the end of last year and ought not to be re-elected so soon. She was elected to ECOSOC in the last Assembly. If elected to the Security Council this year, her term of office on both Councils will expire simultaneously in 1950. It seems to me that the Latin American States will not wish to have both Argentina and Brazil on the Security Council simultaneously and that we would do better to look about for another Latin American candidate.
- 3.
- If Turkey is a candidate, we should note that Turkey already has a seat on ECOSOC which she continues to hold for another year. I see no ground on which Turkey, by virtue of its intrinsic importance deserves to be on both Councils at once. Surely we should have enough friends in the world to be able to spread these offices more widely.
- 4.
- Of the six ECOSOC members whose terms expire this year, five apparently desire re-election, while the sixth—the Netherlands—will apparently stand for the Security Council. I see no reason why Peru and Chile should be re-elected, particularly the former, whose contribution to ECOSOC has been virtually nil. China and France, as great powers, are undoubtedly entitled to re-election. The situation as regards Canada is perhaps more difficult. Canada will continue to be on the Security Council for another year, and Australia and New Zealand will continue to be on ECOSOC. Hayden Raynor admits that the Commonwealth is overrepresented on ECOSOC but feels we ought to support Canada for re-election, perhaps with an understanding that we would replace New Zealand next year with a Non-Commonwealth State. While I am conscious of Canada’s political and economic importance to us and to the world, I feel that it is a mistake to re-elect any but the Big Five to ECOSOC, particularly when they are also members of the Security Council.
Would it be possible for Mr. Wainhouse, Miss Brown and me to discuss with you for a few minutes the problems indicated above?4
[Page 101]- The preliminary Department of State position on filling the offices of United Nations organs for a new term was fixed by a Departmental group set up in 1946 and known as the Membership Team.↩
- That is, offices dealing with relations with specific countries and areas.↩
- G. Hayden Raynor, Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of European Affairs (Hickerson), and in charge of European Affairs liaison with the Office of United Nations Affairs.↩
- David W. Wainhouse, Associate Chief of the Division of International Security Affairs, and Elizabeth A. Brown of the International Administration Staff.↩