IO files: US(P)/A/M(Chr)/3
Minutes of the Third Meeting of the United States Delegation, Paris Hotel d’Iéna, September 23, 1948, 9:15 a. m.
[Here follow list of persons (39) present and discussion of prior agenda subjects.]
3. Slates for the Security Council and Economic and Social Council (Mr. Popper)
Mr. Popper explained that the Department had reached a tentative position on the slates for the two Councils before the Delegation left the United States. The final position of the Delegation would therefore [Page 143] have to be formulated in the light of the developments in Paris.
(a) Security Council
Mr. Popper stated that it had been decided in connection with the consideration of a candidate to replace Belgium, that it was of first importance to retain this Council seat for a Western European state. The United States had approached Norway, which it regarded as the most eligible state and Norway had consented to campaign for election. It could therefore be considered that the Delegation was committed to support Norway for this seat.
As regards the successor to Colombia, Mr. Popper informed the Delegation that, while Brazil was willing to be a candidate, it would not campaign actively for itself. There was no information as to the preferred candidate of the Latin American states. Cuba had indicated its interest in standing for election. Mr. Popper suggested that the Delegation should consider whether it should initiate a real campaign for Brazil or simply await the decision of the Latin American caucus on a preferred candidate. The staff recommendation would be to indicate to other Delegations that the United States favors Brazil but will follow the decision of the Latin American caucus. Mr. Rusk noted that Ambassador Johnson, in Rio de Janeiro, had made it clear that Brazil would not be an active candidate.
Dr. Corrigan said that the liaison officers for the Latin American republics would prefer Peru and, as a second choice Ecuador, where elections had recently been held, a strong government established, and it was known that there was an outstanding individual available for service on the Council. Ambassador Sayre asked what objections there were to Peru, and Dr. Corrigan said he would strongly favor its candidacy.
The Secretary asked about Cuba’s candidacy.… Dr. Corrigan thought it would be necessary to find out first how much support Cuba has obtained. Mr. Rusk believed that it would be important to sound out all the Latin American states as to their preferred candidate and then support their candidate if at all possible.
Mr. Raynor referred to the selection of a state to replace Belgium. He stated that the Netherlands had announced its candidacy and had frankly stated that its desire for election was based on the hope that in the Council it might be able to protect itself in the Indonesian situation. The Department had attempted to discourage the candidacy of the Netherlands, both because it had previously served a term on the Security Council and because of its present involvement in Indonesia. He believed special efforts should be made now to discourage its candidacy. Ambassador Austin asked whether, if the Netherlands were defeated by Norway, it would attempt to campaign against Turkey for the seat now held by Syria. It was thought that it would [Page 144] not. The Secretary asked whether the United States Delegation should not defer its decision on the Netherlands until it saw what support it had obtained. Mr. Raynor said that he believed the United States should attempt to discourage the Netherlands’ candidacy immediately. Mr. Ross noted that the Netherlands’ representatives knew that the United States took a dim view of its ambitions in this regard.
Turning to the question of a replacement for Syria, Mr. Popper explained that India had apparently withdrawn from the contest. Both Egypt and Turkey remained active candidates. Egypt was said to have the support of the Arab League. He raised the question whether the United States should support an Arab state at this time both because the election of an Arab state might tend to establish further the idea that one Council seat was reserved for a member of the Arab League, and because the Arab states were so deeply involved in the problem of Palestine. He explained that the Department had tentatively favored Turkey. Mr. Ross, while indicating his agreement that this seat should not be reserved permanently for an Arab state, believed that, in the light of the present situation in Palestine, the United States should not oppose the election of an Arab state, if one were an active candidate. Mr. Villard agreed. Ambassador Austin asked what the British position was and Mr. Popper said the British had indicated a preference for Turkey. Mr. Ross noted that, chiefly because of the principle involved in electing another Arab state to replace Syria, the French were favoring Turkey. Mr. Jessup thought it would be desirable to know the thinking of the Eastern European states on this matter. Mr. Villard thought it was certain that the Soviets would strongly oppose Turkey. Mr. Rusk believed it would be a very serious matter if three Arab states were elected in a row to the Security Council: first Egypt, then Syria, and now Egypt again; more information was needed on the views of the other Moslem and Middle-Eastern states on this matter. It was noted that states such as Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Liberia, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and India would never have an opportunity to sit on the Council if an Arab state were always elected. The Secretary thought it would be best to attempt to clarify the situation by obtaining the views of other states before making a final decision. He recalled the circumstances of a conversation which he had with the Egyptian representative in Washington, at which time the Egyptian candidacy had been put forward, and pointed out that he had made no commitment to Egypt.
(b) The Economic and Social Council
Mr. Popper explained that six members of the Economic and Social Council were retiring. It could be expected that France and China [Page 145] would be reelected in accordance with the informal understanding that the five major powers should always be represented on this Council. The staff would recommend that the United States support these two countries for reelection.
Chile and Peru were the two retiring Latin American members. Mr. Popper explained that both these states were anxious to be elected and that in addition the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti and Bolivia were also interested in running for the Council. It had been thought that the United States should probably follow the decision of the Latin American caucus.
Mr. Thorp asked whether members of the Delegation should not openly indicate to other delegations that we liked the idea of rotation of members on the Economic and Social Council.
The Secretary inquired whether there had been any members reelected in the past and Mr. Stinebower explained that no Latin American state had ever been reelected. Mr. Stinebower wondered whether since Brazil was a member of the Council, if it should be elected to the Security Council, it might not be asked to resign to make way for another Latin American state. In his opinion, this would be a disaster since Brazil was one of the most useful members of the Council. It was thought that this problem need not be met now and was unlikely to arise.
With respect to Canada, also retiring from the Council, Mr. Popper indicated that the Department had initially favored its reelection, but Canada had now stated that it would not be a candidate. The recommendation, therefore, would be to support India to replace Canada, with the understanding that Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar would be the Indian representative on the Council. The Secretary noted that Madame Pandit had asked to see him and asked what reply he should make to her if she requested the support of the United States for India’s candidacy. Mr. Popper thought it would he appropriate to say that we would support India, with the understanding that Mudaliar would be its representative. Mr. Jessup said that if Madame Pandit should raise the question of Hyderabad, the Secretary might want to follow the same line he (Jessup) had previously taken with the Indians, that it would be desirable for India to take the initiative in requesting United Nations observers for the scheduled elections in Hyderabad.
Mr. Thorp asked whether it would be possible to defer any final commitments to India until he had had an opportunity to talk with other representatives. He pointed out that India was in a difficult economic [Page 146] situation, that it was under-developed, that it was pressing for high tariffs quite contrary to our own international economic policies, and that there were already too many states on the Council in a similar economic position. The effect upon the work of the Council particularly worried him because the Middle East and Far East were already well represented. He personally had favored Canada’s reelection, and hoped final decision on this seat could be postponed. He doubted whether it was possible to depend on the assurance that any particular representative would be named to represent India. He personally would hesitate to rely on such a commitment since previously Mudaliar was the designated representative, but young Nehru had actually attended. …
The Secretary stated that, in the light of the discussion, he believed the Delegation was in agreement that no commitment should be made to India, at this time.
Mr. Popper explained that the Department favored Belgium to replace the Netherlands on the Council. There were no other Western European candidates. This was agreed.
[Here follows discussion of other items on the Delegation’s agenda.]