Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

310.2/12–552

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Young)¹

confidential

[Washington, December 4, 1952.]

• Subject:
• Japan’s Application for Membership in UN

• Participants:
• Mr. Shinichi Kamimura, Minister, Japanese Embassy
• Mr. Kenneth T. Young, NA
• Mr. Franklin Hawley, NA
• Miss Ruth Bacon, FE
• Mr. Paul W. Jones, UNP

Mr. Kamimura called on Mr. Young at the Department at 3:15 p.m., December 4, 1952, by appointment made at the former’s request, to discuss the present status of Japan’s application for the membership of Japan in the United Nations.

Associate Membership

Mr. Kamimura stated that he did not come to discuss the possibilities of Japan’s associate or non-voting membership which he realized was a complicated question which would require considerable study by the Department but to discuss Japan’s application for full membership. Mr. Young stated that he felt that he should, for the record, say that the question of associate membership was not considered to be an outstanding or pending matter, and should not be so interpreted so long as Japan’s full membership was still under active consideration before the UN. With respect to information that Italy had now rejected the idea of associate membership, Mr. Kamimura observed that Japan was nevertheless still interested in exploring that possibility.

Clarification of August 27 meeting

Mr. Young noted that Mr. Ushiroku had recently seen Ambassador Key in New York to ask what plans the US Delegation had in mind for action on Japan’s membership during the present assembly, such as getting the GA to affirm Japan’s qualifications. As Mr. Ushiroku had referred in this connection to Mr. Kamimura’s conversation with Ambassador Gross on August 27, 1952 Mr. Young said that, as a participant in that talk, he thought it would be appropriate to clarify the nature of the August 27 meeting and to state that he had no recollection of the understanding that the US would sponsor a resolution in the GA affirming Japan’s qualifications for membership. He recalled that Ambassador Gross’ main purpose was to discuss the prospective SC action on the membership of Japan, and that conversation beyond that question dealt, as a side issue, on speculation by Ambassador Gross as to what additional measures or steps might be taken if Japan’s membership was defeated in the SC, including mention of the possibility, through GA action, of an associate or non-voting membership for Japan; he could recall nothing in the way of a commitment by Ambassador Gross for US sponsorship of a GA resolution in favor of Japan’s admission. While not making an issue of this point, Mr. Kamimura observed that he clearly remembered that Ambassador Gross had said that if the Japanese application was turned down by the SC, then the US would look to the GA in order to promote probable public opinion for Japan’s admission to the UN. While he said that he could not say whether this was a promise by the US, Japan had interpreted this as Ambassador Gross’ promise.

Japanese Desire for a GA Resolution

Mr. Kamimura referred to the action taken by the Security Council in supporting Japan’s application for membership by a 10 to 1 vote and said that on that basis the Japanese Government was desirous of knowing if the US was willing to sponsor a resolution in the GA similar to Resolution 296 of 1949. He said that the Japanese Government attached great importance to affirmation by the GA of Japan’s qualifications for membership. Mr. Young stated that US intentions had not changed, although they did not necessarily run in the direction of a series of individual resolutions similar to those of 1949.

GA Support for Japan

Mr. Kamimura said that Mr. Takeuchi, while going to New York frequently for one day visits, was unable to devote very much time to the UN aspects of his responsibilities although he thought nevertheless that the Japanese Delegation had got off to a good start. He added that if Japan’s membership came up before the GA, he felt sure that it would receive majority support. The Philippines, for example, would not oppose and at the worst would do no more than abstain; there was every prospect that Indonesia would support Japan. He explained that since August 1952 the Japanese had contacted every country in the UN except those in the Soviet bloc, and that Japan was assured of a strong majority in her favor if this question came to a vote. Mr. Kamimura added that, speaking personally and informally, the country most favorably disposed and most likely to sponsor such a GA resolution would be Nationalist China, which might pose a very delicate question. Mr. Young agreed that, speaking with equal informality, such support from China would indeed pose a delicate and difficult question.

Present Status of Membership Question

With regard to the present status of Japan’s application, Mr. Jones explained that the general question of membership, which included that of Japan, was the 7th of 8 items on the agenda of the Ad Hoc Political Committee which was then considering item number 5; it appeared likely that membership would come up for consideration within the next one or two weeks. Mr. Kamimura indicated the hope of the Japanese Government that the committee would consider favorably a resolution for Japan’s membership plus, as Senator Austin had recommended, liberalization of entry requirements. Mr. Jones said that Senator Austin had no specific measure or plan in mind and that his statements before the Security Council represented general views on the necessity for liberalization of present procedures. He added that another proposal was a joint resolution by five Central American states under which the General Assembly would ask the International Court of Justice whether the veto of one Security Council member could bar the entry of a state which had the support of seven Security Council members. Mr. Jones said that questions such as this, as well as Japan’s membership, might be removed from consideration by the Ad Hoc Political Committee and referred instead to an inter-sessional committee which might be set up to study the entire membership question and to report to the 8th Session.

Regarding the possibility of an inter-sessional committee, Mr. Kamimura appeared to be concerned over its purpose, its probable effect on General Assembly action regarding Japan’s membership, and the United States attitude towards such a committee. Mr. Jones explained that the proposals for such a committee had just come up recently and that it was still under study. He emphasized the point that the United States has taken no final position on this committee. However, Mr. Jones, pointed out to Mr. Kamimura the effect which the establishment of such a committee would have on the question of Japan’s membership. If the prevailing sentiment in the General Assembly is to set up such a committee, then a resolution endorsing Japan’s qualifications for membership in the United Nations would not be voted on by the General Assembly, but instead would probably be referred to the inter-sessional committee. Mr. Young and Mr. Jones both pointed out that in such an event, the whole purpose of introducing a single resolution on Japan would be lost.

Mr. Young assured Mr. Kamimura that the United States is fully aware of the desirability of trying to obtain at this session of the General Assembly some form of endorsement for Japan’s membership in the United Nations. Accordingly, the United States has under consideration various ways of accomplishing this objective. Mr. Young indicated in general terms that the United States would not favor a series of separate resolutions similar to the action of the General Assembly in 1949, but was considering the possibility of a separate resolution on Japan or some form of composite resolution. At the very least, he indicated, the preamble of the motion setting up the special inter-sessional committee would make note of the Security Council action on Japan’s application, which would constitute endorsement by the General Assembly of Japan’s application. It was not entirely clear whether or not Mr. Kamimura fully understood our explanations regarding the inter-sessional committee or our intentions, for he again stated the strong desire of his government to have a separate resolution introduced in the General Assembly on Japan’s membership, and, by implication, to have the United States sponsor it. In concluding discussion on this point, Mr. Young attempted to reassure Mr. Kamimura that the Department of State for its part strongly hopes that a majority of the General Assembly would agree to some action this session which would serve as endorsement for Japan’s membership.

Further Action in the Security Council

In reply to the question by Mr. Young as to what would be Japan’s views with regard to a second Security Council action on its application, Mr. Kamimura replied that this would require study, but that what Japan does want is action by the General Assembly, as Japan’s status is still ambiguous. He added that if it were known in Tokyo that no action was to be taken in this session and that Japan’s membership would be submerged for another year or two, this would be difficult for his government to explain to the Japanese people and that Tokyo would probably instruct him to press for action at the present session of the General Assembly.

Following Mr. Kamimura’s departure, it was agreed that the United States delegation in New York should be informed by telegram of the main points of the conversation and requested to keep in contact with Mr. Ushiroku pending Mr. Takeuchi’s visit to New York next week, and that the gist of the information given Mr. Kamimura should be summarized for him in a letter from Mr. Young.

Kenneth T. Young, Jr.

1. Drafted by the Officer in Charge, Japanese Affairs (Hawley). Source text indicates this memorandum was dictated Dec. 5.