Office of the Historian

330/4–1554: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Mission at the United Nations1

confidential
Washington, April 26, 1954—7:25 p.m.

522. Re Brussels 777, USUN 628 and Brussels 805:

1.
Department agrees that in view major importance Chinese representation issue we must make every practicable effort obtain as safe majorities as possible in UN bodies with respect this question. Department also agrees Thailand or Philippines would be excellent SC members and that fact neither these countries has been elected to SC is strong argument in their favor. However effort take Western European seat away from Western Europe and give it to one of these Far Eastern countries or some other non-European would in Department’s view involve following most serious difficulties:
a)
We would have to engage our prestige in active campaign against our European allies. This would cause deep resentment in these countries and could have serious effects upon our relationships with them in UN. Would be particularly difficult for us to campaign against Belgium which has been strong NATO and EDC supporter and has contributed troops Korea.
b)
It is more than doubtful we could obtain two-thirds vote for our candidate in such campaign. We have had difficulty enough in taking Eastern European seat away from Soviet bloc and giving it to Yugoslavia, Greece and now Turkey. It would be all the more difficult take Western European seat from Western Europeans. Concept of geographical distribution is deeply ingrained, and attempt to alter it would raise hornet’s nest. In addition Western Europe we must expect British Commonwealth would oppose us. Many LA countries would probably also oppose out of fear further change in geographic distribution would jeopardize their own representation on Council, a matter which is of utmost importance to them. Soviet bloc might also join these groups against us out of desire try divide our allies from us or might put up own candidate against Western Europe.
2.
Moreover, Department estimates we will be able keep Chinese Communists out of SC next year regardless of what country elected succeed Denmark. Even if UK should abandon “moratorium” arrangement and Western Europe and British Commonwealth should follow suit, we believe we could still count on five votes (US, China, Turkey, Brazil, and LA country to be elected this fall) to prevent adoption of motion unseat Tsiang and seat Communist.
3.
In light of above it is Department’s present conclusion it would be impracticable to try build up non-European candidate for Western European SC seat. In fact it seems to Department that since European candidate to succeed Denmark will be Belgium or Sweden, we should try now promote Belgian candidacy. Longer we wait before taking any steps this direction, greater the likelihood Sweden will run and actually be elected. Although we cannot guarantee Belgium’s future position on Chinese representation, we definitely have better chance of getting support from Belgium which has not recognized Chinese Communist regime than from Sweden, which has recognized Chinese Communist regime and we expect will continue favor seating Chinese Communists in UN. Department agrees with Embassy Brussels comment (Brussels 805) that in absence radical change in situation, unlikely any Belgian Government in foreseeable future could unilaterally change its present policy. Actually since Belgian foreign policy so closely oriented toward US, seems to us conceivable we could influence Belgians maintain present position even if UK and France should switch.
4.
Department therefore suggests you indicate to Van Langenhove, without making any final commitment, our belief Belgium need not hesitate in seeking Council seat (Deptel 456). You might also tell UK this and inform it of our views on Sweden along lines suggested Deptel 463. We would later have opportunity if felt desirable sound out Belgium on Chinese representation issue before making final commitment.
5.
Department would of course expect to examine again entire problem of election for Denmark’s seat if Belgians do not run and Sweden should become European candidate.
6.
Department aware that, apart from question of Chinese representation, general problem geographic distribution SC continues exist since under present pattern no provision is made to permit election Far Eastern States to non-permanent seat. This subject is being studied by Department. Possibilities of adjustment short of Charter amendment would necessarily involve some such scheme as alternate sharing of one seat by Far Eastern area with other area and subject is obviously a delicate one.

Smith
  1. Drafted by Jones and concurred in by Taylor and Popper; cleared with the geographic bureaus; signed by Deputy Assistant Secretary Wainhouse.↩