Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

IO Files

Minutes of Twenty-seventh Meeting of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly, Paris, December 6, 1951

Paris, December 6, 1951

secret
US/A/M(Chr)/214

[Here follows list of persons (43) present.]

Mr. Taylor outlined the agenda for the plenary meetings scheduled for December 6 and 7 and the positions which would be taken by the US on the various items. The first item was the formal installation of the Assistant Secretary-General for Social Affairs. The second item was the election of the three non-permament members of the Security Council. The Delegation, in accordance with its previous decisions, would vote for Chile, Pakistan and Greece. Our present tally indicated that Greece ought to come fairly close to the necessary two-thirds vote oil the first ballot. There should be switches to Greece on the second ballot. The Scandinavians, for example, had indicated they would switch to Greece after the first ballot. Developments with respect to the British position on this matter were important. Mr. Taylor asked Ambassador Gross to indicate the results of his conversations with the British. Ambassador Gross stated that the UK position still remained to vote for Byelorussia. The French, influenced by the UK position, had decided to vote for Byelorussia, too. The important question was, how soon after the first ballot would the UK and France switch to Greece. Every effort had been made to try to persuade them to change their position, but without success. Ambassador Gifford had seen Mr. Eden in London about this, but also in vain. Ambassador Sunde of Norway had stated that the Scandinavians would be under pressure to change after the first ballot. Since indications were that the tide would change, it was important to avoid giving an impression of US acquiescence in States voting for Byelorussia on the first ballot, since this might tend to freeze the situation. In talking-with Ambassador Gifford, in the presence of Mrs. Roosevelt and Mr. Harriman, Ambassador Gross had said that the present British attitude was not a good prelude to the forthcoming talks between Mr. Churchill and President Truman in Washington.¹

Ambassador Gross thought that there were indications that other western Europeans would also vote for Byelorussia. Luxembourg and Belgium would, however, vote for Greece. A conversation with Mr. Pearson had shown that the Canadians were waivering but would probably vote for Greece without saying much about it. A primary factor in the British position appeared to stem from the UK interpretation of the so-called “Gentlemen’s Agreement” of 1946. The US was certain that this arrangement was not intended to apply beyond the first SC elections in London in 1946. Governor Stevenson of Illinois had represented the US on those early meetings and had specifically confirmed this. The USSR, of course, was claiming that the US had broken this agreement. Ambassador Gross felt that the UK attitude was important not only for the present but for its effect upon the future institutional development of the UN. It had appeared that the present UK Government wanted to make some kind of overture to the Soviet Union and thought that this was a good way to do it. They also were slightly concerned lest a vote against the Soviet candidate might precipitate a Soviet walkout. The principal reason, however, remained the British interpretation of the 1946 agreement. The British stated that in 1949, on the occasion of the election of Yugoslavia to the Council, they had publicly reaffirmed their interpretation of the 1946 agreement.

Mrs. Roosevelt said she would reverse the explanation by Ambassador Gross of the UK reasoning to read that their interpretation of the 1946 agreement was motivated by their desires. Ambassador Gross said he could not disagree. He added that he also could see no possibility of a Soviet walkout. Mr. Sandifer noted that the Russians were not even threatening so to act.

Mr. Cohen commented on the effect on public relations of this situation. He felt that so long as the hostilities continued in Korea there could be no question of supporting a state which had indicated its opposition to UN action there. Ambassador Jessup agreed with this statement, adding, however, that we should make every effort to avoid having the present situation characterized as a “big split” among the Western Powers.

Ambassador Gross commented that the British instructions were to inform only the US, France, Greece, the Dominions and the Russians of their position. Otherwise it was to be kept a “dark secret”.

Mr. Taylor stated that the third item on the plenary agenda was the ECOSOC election. Mr. Taylor recalled that the Delegation had decided to vote for China, France, Argentina, Cuba, Belgium and Australia. The situation was much less acute in these elections. The dynamic factor involved in them came from their relationship to the ICJ elections. He pointed out that whatever our tally showed as to relative voting strength, it would be subject to variation depending upon the degree of Latin American activity. He recalled that our instructions would allow us to vote for Burma only in case it was certain that Egypt would not be elected and Australia showed no prospects of winning. Mr. Lubin asked whether the US would not be in a better position vis-à-vis the Latin Americans if the ICJ elections were held first. Mr. Taylor stated that the agenda was set and it would be very difficult to change it.

The fourth item would be the ICJ elections. The Security Council would meet in Conference Room 4, with Ambassador Gross sitting for the US. In the special election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Azevedo (Brazil), the US would vote for Carneiro, also a Brazilian. It seemed certain that Carneiro would be elected by a large majority.

In the regular elections for the five expired terms, the US would vote for Rau, Klaestad, Hackworth, Golunsky and DeVisscher. Our tally showed that Ugon of Uruguay would obtain 9 or 10 votes in the Security Council. Mr. Taylor was not certain whether Klaestad or DeVisscher would be defeated by Ugon’s apparent success. The result would depend on which of those two the Latin Americans decided to oppose to assure Ugon’s election. The US vote, in accordance with instructions and the decision of the Delegation, would remain as presently determined unless it appeared that Klaestad or DeVisscher had no chance of being elected. In this case the Delegation would reconsider and probably vote with the majority for Ugon.²

[Here follows a discussion of the remaining items on the agenda of the forthcoming plenary meetings, which consisted of reports from the Credentials Committee, the Ad Hoc Political Committee, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Committees.]

1. Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt was Acting Head of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly at this time. W. Averell Harriman was Director, Mutual Security Agency. For documentation regarding the Truman-Churchill conversations, see Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, volume vi.

2. For the record of voting on December 6 for the three nonpermanent seats of the Security Council, see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixth Session, Plenary Meetings, pp. 203 ff. (hereafter cited as GA (VI), Plenary). Chile and Pakistan were elected on the first ballot. None of the others received the necessary two-thirds majority, but Greece and Byelorussia were at the head of the list. There followed three “restricted” ballots as between Greece and Byelorussia, with inconclusive results. In three “unrestricted” ballots (any eligible Member qualifying), the deadlock continued, with two other states reappearing. In further pursuance of the rules of the General Assembly governing such procedure (Rule 94), the president ordered one more restricted ballot (Greece and Byelorussia alone), which was inconclusive. The president then declared the election postponed “in order to give us all time for reflection.” (ibid., p. 205)

   The elections for the seats on the International Court of Justice proceeded on the same day, and concurrently in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. Messrs. Golunsky (Soviet Union), Hackworth (United States). Klaestad (Norway), Ugon (Uruguay), and Sir Benegal Rau (India) were elected. For the proceedings in the General Assembly, see ibid., pp. 208 ff.; and in the Security Council, where an interesting constitutional situation developed, see United Nations, Official Records of the Security Council, Sixth Year, 567th Meeting (hereafter cited as SC, 6th yr., 567th mtg., or number as appropriate).