UNP files, lot 59 D 237, “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)
secret
[Washington,] March 28, 1952.
- Subject:
- Admission of New Members to the United Nations
Attached is a summary of a Membership Team discussion of your suggestions
concerning a possible package deal. While only preliminary views were
expressed and although FE and GER in particular had reservations, there was a
general disposition to proceed with exploring such an arrangement. However,
there was little support for a Charter amendment.1
At this stage, the following points arise for decision:
1. Package Proposal
a) States to be Included. There
are now eleven non-Soviet applicants. Japan will probably apply soon and
Germany, Spain, Laos and Cambodia are possible future applicants. Of all
these, Korea, Germany and Vietnam would probably have to be excluded to
prevent a Soviet veto. If Vietnam is excluded, Laos and Cambodia would also
have to be omitted. FE appears willing to
consider this, but believes that we would have to justify the exclusion of
Korea and Vietnam on ether grounds than the fact of rival claimants. Spain
presents another problem. We believe it should be included, but this could
mean a Soviet veto.
The Soviet Union would in all likelihood insist on the inclusion of all five
of its candidates. Of these, Outer Mongolia is especially difficult,
particularly if Korea is excluded. However, FE is willing to consider this.
b) Timing. If the Department
should decide to accept a package proposal, should we wait until the Seventh
Session of the Assembly or should action be taken earlier in the Security
Council? Should we suggest that Japan apply in the near future? Should we
approach Spain to apply for membership if it is decided that it should be
included?
2. Amendment to Article 4
We are not sure what your present thought is concerning the nature of the
amendment. The following alternatives suggest themselves:
[Page 805]
(a) removal of the
qualifications for membership; (b) removal of the
veto from votes on membership; (c) elimination of the
role of the Security Council admission procedures; and (d) a combination of (a) and either (b) or (c).
[Attachment]
Summary or Minutes of Membership Team on Question
of Admission of New Members
A meeting of the Membership Team was held on March 25, 1952 to consider
our position on the membership question. Particular attention was given
to the suggestion that we might propose the admission of all present and
future applicants except for areas over which there are rival claimants
and at the same time propose an amendment to article 4 to remove the
membership qualifications. The opinions expressed at the meeting were
only preliminary views.
Mr. Sale said that EUR believed the suggestion should be seriously considered.
Mr. Howard (NEA) and Mr.
Fensterwald (I/UNA) thought that their offices could support a package
arrangement, although they believed it would be unwise and unnecessary
to propose an amendment to article 4. Mr. Monsma (ARA) expressed the opinion that ARA would probably be willing to go along with a package
proposal if the parts of the Department most closely involved believed
this to be the best solution, although he thought that we should
continue to consider ways to achieve the admission of only the qualified
through circumvention or overriding of the Soviet veto.
Miss Bacon (FE) pointed out the various problems for
FE of a package proposal which
omitted Korea and the three states of Indo-China and which included
Outer Mongolia. She stated that FE would
like to reserve its position pending further developments. However, she
believed FE might be willing to accept a
package arrangement as the only way to achieve the admission of Japan
and others we favor. If Korea and Vietnam were excluded, she thought
that we would have to justify their omission on other grounds than that
they are areas over which there are rival claimants. While Mr.
Sale thought Spain should be included,
MissBacon expressed the
opinion that this would mean a Soviet veto. Miss Bacon did not believe that we
should try to amend article 4. Mr. Williams (GPA) mentioned the difficulties involved if
Germany was excluded. Nevertheless, he did not wish to say that GER would stand in the way but thought that
we should await further developments.
It was generally agreed that the Department would have to weigh very
carefully public reaction to a package proposal and that a final
decision to modify our position could only be made at the highest level.
[Page 806]
There was also general
agreement that in view of our past position on the membership question,
it would probably be easier for the United States to accept a
satisfactory package arrangement proposed by another member than to
propose an arrangement itself.
Messrs. Sale, Howard and Fensterwald hoped that
in the near future we could sufficiently crystalize our position so as
to begin consultations with the United Kingdom, France, Italy and
others. Miss Bacon, however,
believed that it was too early to carry on consultations with other
governments and that we should wait until later in the year to finalize
our views.
