UNP Files, Lot 59 D 237, “Italian Membership”
Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs (Wainhouse) to the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson)
Subject: Italian Membership
The following is for your use in conversations with Guidotti on October 16 concerning the question of Italian membership:
1. The Italian application has been vetoed by the Soviet Union four times—on August 26, 1947; October 1, 1947; April 10, 1948; and September 13, 1949. The Soviet Union has given as its reason for vetoing these applications the failure of the Security Council to recommend simultaneous admission of Cominform applicants.
2. The United States has supported and will continue to support strongly the admission of Italy. Together with the UK and France, we have recently reaffirmed our “determination to make every effort to secure Italy’s membership in the United Nations.” We have given serious consideration to all suggested courses of action by which Italy’s admission might be achieved, including the recent proposal of the Government of Italy.
3. The Government of Italy, as pointed out in an Aide-Mémoire handed to the Secretary at Ottawa, maintains that since the Soviet Union had never questioned Italy’s qualifications for membership, its vetoes of Security Council recommendations to admit Italy are null [Page 361] and void; and that the General Assembly should therefore disregard the Soviet vetoes and consider action to admit Italy. Aside from the practical consideration that the Soviet Union could again raise the question of Italian membership in the Security Council and advance alleged Charter grounds, we see basic Charter difficulties in the action suggested. In an advisory opinion of March 3, 1950, the International Court of Justice concluded that under the Charter, the General Assembly cannot admit a state to membership when the Security Council has made no recommendation for admission either because of the failure of a candidate to obtain the required majority or because of the negative vote of a permanent member. Further, while we certainly agree that the Soviet vetoes of Italy’s application have not been based on Charter grounds, it does not follow, and the International Court of Justice has never suggested, that an improper exercise of the veto right is, because of its impropriety, null and void. Nor does it follow that the General Assembly can take action implying that these vetoes are ineffective.
4. Peru has requested the inclusion on the General Assembly agenda of an item entitled: “Admission of New Members: Rights of States Candidates to Adduce Proof to Show that They Satisfy the Requirements of Article 4 of the Charter.” This proposal probably is similar to the plan Belaunde (Peru) has discussed with USUN under which the General Assembly would request that applicants be permitted to present to the Security Council proof of their qualifications for membership. If there was then a threat of a veto, the Assembly would request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice as to the value of the proof. Assuming a favorable opinion by the Court, the Security Council, in Belaunde’s opinion, would have to apply strictly the sense of Article 4 and no member could veto the application.
We see two basic difficulties in the plan. First, since an advisory opinion is not binding, a permanent member could still veto. Second, we doubt whether the Court would consider itself competent to determine whether an applicant is qualified, since the Court itself has previously stated that of the factors to be taken into account in considering conditions laid down in Article 4, “no relevant political factor … connected with the conditions of admission is excluded.”
5. The Department of State is inclined to favor reconsideration by the Security Council of Italy’s application as a special case while the General Assembly is meeting in Paris, although it would not wish to take this action if Italy opposed it. We would be prepared to support or sponsor reconsideration and believe there may be an outside chance that the USSR would not veto if the case is presented effectively. The USUN is discussing this matter with the UK and France and has explained our views to Guidotti. The latter has expressed the opinion [Page 362] that it would be a mistake to propose reconsideration of Italy’s application by the Security Council since the USSR would probably veto on Charter grounds and render the tactic suggested by the Italians or Belaunde even more difficult. He stressed the “superiority” of the Assembly and urged that the Assembly should recognize past Soviet vetoes as null and void. He also expressed doubt as to the advisability of preliminary consultations with the USSR, which Gross had suggested as a personal idea.
6. If our efforts to obtain Italy’s admission fail, we would be prepared to vote for an amendment to Article 86 to give Italy voting rights in the Trusteeship Council if Italy desired it. However, such an amendment would probably be vetoed by the Soviet Union. We would also favor an arrangement for participation by Italy without voting rights in the main committees of the General Assembly if desired by the Italians.
7. We recommend that you inform Guidotti that we intend to do all we can to obtain admission for Italy but explain the basic Charter difficulties in the plans proposed by Italy and by Belaunde. We also recommend that you state that we are inclined to believe that the only feasible course is Security Council reconsideration of Italy’s application as a special case and that we would be prepared to sponsor or support reconsideration and make the strongest possible effort for a favorable recommendation unless Italy opposed the idea. If our efforts to obtain membership for Italy should fail, we would be prepared to vote for an amendment to Article 86 and would favor an arrangement for participation by Italy without voting rights in the main Committees of the Assembly if these measures should be desired by the Italians. We would appreciate Italy’s views on these matters and will, of course, continue to consult closely with Italy in the future.