UNP files, lot 59 D 237, “Slates”
Memorandum Circulated by the Bureau of United Nations Affairs to the Geographic Bureaus1
Presidency of Eighth General Assembly
Past Presidents
| 1st Session | Spaak (Belgium) |
| 1st Special Session | Aranha (Brazil) |
| 2nd Session | Aranha (Brazil) |
| 2nd Special Session | Arce (Argentina) |
| 3rd Session | Evatt (Australia) |
| 4th Session | Romulo (Philippines) |
| 5th Session | Entezam (Iran) |
| 6th Session | Padilla Nervo (Mexico) |
| 7th Session | Pearson (Canada) |
Candidates for Eighth Session
- Prince Wan (Thailand)
- Dr. Charles Malik (Lebanon)—possible candidate
Discussion
Prince Wan has been a candidate since last fall. On June 12, the Thai Ambassador, in a conversation with Mr. Robertson and Mr. Landon, said that he had been requested by Prince Wan to ascertain whether he could count on United States support. The Ambassador stated that Prince Wan was under the impression that he would receive our support but wanted confirmation, and added that he had already approached a number of countries and had instructions to secure as substantial a picture of possible support for Prince Wan as obtainable at this time. The Ambassador was informed that the matter would be referred to USA in order to secure a reply.
Askoul of Lebanon has twice called on Mr. [Ross?] in New York to ask his personal views as to whether Dr. Malik should run. Mr. Ross was non-committal and has asked for the Department’s advice. In addition, a member of the Lebanon legation has indicated to the Department that Dr. Malik is seriously interested and that we might expect a formal communication later.
So far as we know there are no other candidates. The Belgian Ambassador indicated last fall that the Western Europeans might make a bid for the Presidency but in view of the difficulty of electing a NATO country following Pearson, it is doubtful that they will try this year. [Page 460] It is, of course, possible that a Latin American candidacy will develop—Cordier was apprehensive last month about this possibility.
Both Prince Wan and Dr. Malik would do an excellent job, and from the standpoint of geographic distribution it is time for a President from either the Far East or Middle East. However, Dr. Malik does not yet seem to be a definite candidate, whereas Prince Wan has long been interested in the post and is under the impression that he can count on our support. These considerations, plus the fact that Thailand has contributed troops to Korea and the psychological advantage of electing an individual from the Far East to the Presidency of the next session, where Far Eastern issues will come to the fore, seem to be in Prince Wan’s favor. Furthermore, it would seem desirable to avoid the difficult situation which will develop if both Dr. Malik and Prince Wan, and possibly others, become strong candidates and we are forced to take a choice between them. For these reasons it is believed that we should give the vote to Prince Wan’s candidacy now and at the same time should let it be known to Dr. Malik that we may have to support Prince Wan. It would be easier to inform Dr. Malik now of our thinking on this matter than to wait until he might become a strong contender and then have to inform him that we intend to support another candidate.
Tentative Recommendation
- 1.
- We should inform Prince Wan, and others, when asked, that we believe Prince Wan would make an excellent President and that we are disposed to support his candidacy, provided, of course, that he attains sufficient support from other Members.
- 2.
- We should inform Dr. Malik that we have the highest regard for him and believe he would make an excellent President. However, in all fairness we must point out that Prince Wan has been interested in the Presidency for some time and has recently asked for our support. In view of his long interest in the Presidency, we are disposed to support his candidacy if he attains sufficient support from other Members.
- Source text attached to UNA memorandum of June 29 to USUN cited in footnote 1, infra. It was drafted by Paul W. Jones on the basis of the conclusions reached in the UNA meeting of June 26, and circulated to the geographic bureaus (Monsma, Allen, Howard, and Bacon) for discussion at a meeting on the same date, June 29.↩