320.23/11–553
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Deputy United States Representative at the United Nations (Wadsworth)
- Subject:
- Administrative Tribunal Decisions
- Participants:
- Mr. H. C. Hansen, Danish Foreign Minister
- Ambassador William Borberg, Danish Delegation
- Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., U.S. Delegation
- Ambassador James J. Wadsworth, U.S. Delegation
During a luncheon meeting at Ambassador Borberg’s residence today, Ambassador Lodge brought up the subject of the Administrative Tribunal Decisions, and explained the political implications rather than the legal and administrative imperfections of the Decisions. He pointed out the difference between a constitutional monarchy, such as Denmark, and a Federal Government, such as ours; he explained why the right of investigation was vested in the Congress of the United States, and why the perversion of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution is impossible for the average American citizen to understand.
This in turn, Ambassador Lodge stated, was translated into the attitude of the Congressman representing the average citizen, and he predicted that Congress would never appropriate money which would be paid to individuals whose major aim was to overthrow the United States Government.
Ambassador Borberg pointed out that if the Congress withheld funds, it would be in violation of the Charter which the Senate had ratified. Ambassador Lodge retorted that regardless of this the Congress would not appropriate such funds. Ambassador Borberg then said that such action would penalize Denmark and all the other countries in the United Nations since they would have to make up the deficit, to which Ambassador Lodge replied that that was too bad, but all Delegations should understand clearly what the situation was, particularly as regards Congressional opinion.
Foreign Minister Hansen took little active part in the conversation, but very evidently followed it with great interest and seemed considerably impressed by the political implications of the Tribunal Decisions.
It would appear of value to have selected Embassies stress the political side of this matter rather than the strictly legal side. Wadsworth thinks that the Governments of some Member States would respond to this type of argument rather than agree that the Tribunal had overstepped its legal power or had substituted its judgment for that of the Secretary General. Particularly effective, Wadsworth believes, was the plea made by Ambassador Lodge to consider what the views of the [Page 366] Foreign Minister would be were he a member of the aggrieved Government in such a case. Both he and Borberg admitted that in our position they would probably feel and act exactly as we did.