310.2/12–852
Memorandum by the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs (Bacon), to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs (Johnson)
- Subject:
- Membership Question in the UN
USUN has been working actively on the suggestion for an inter-sessional study group on membership. It now appears that a group of Central American states will probably table a resolution embodying this idea today.
Last week the Japanese discussed with Ken Young the question of obtaining from the GA a statement that Japan in the GA’s view has met the Charter requirements and is qualified for UN membership. [Page 888] Resolutions of this type were passed in 1949 for some nine candidates which had been vetoed in the Security Council. The Japanese indicated that Japan was counting on similar action by this GA for Japan and attached very considerable importance to such action.
Following this conversation the Department informed New York (Gadel 90 December 5) of the Japanese position and suggested that two alternative courses of action were open: (1) the adoption of a separate resolution for Japan or (2) incorporation in the preamble of the inter-sessional resolution of some endorsement of Japan’s candidacy; that as between the two, from the Japanese point of view, the first alternative was preferable; that if either of these alternatives were decided upon for Japan similar action would probably be taken by the GA for the three Indochinese states. USUN was requested to discuss these alternatives with representative delegations from various areas.
This morning’s Daily Classified Summary (Delga 338 December 8)1 reports that the US has discussed this question with the French, the British and the Australians. The British and Australians favor separate resolutions while the French prefer reference in the preamble because of a belief that the voting on the Indochinese resolutions “would not turn out well” as a result of the current Tunisian debates.
Comment: This situation has been discussed with PSA (Bob Hoey)2 and UNP. There was general agreement that Japan’s resolution would probably receive a better vote than the resolutions for the Indochinese states but that the latter resolutions would probably pass although with a considerable number of abstentions. So far as the voting situation was concerned there would be little to be gained from treating the question in the preamble as distinguished from separate resolutions because a roll call vote would in all probability be demanded on the preamble paragraph in question. In fact from the FE point of view if Japan and the three Indochinese states were treated together in the preamble, Japan’s situation would probably suffer in the voting from association with the Indochinese states. It was felt that our best course would probably be—depending of course on results of wider consultations in New York—to go ahead with a separate resolution for Japan leaving it up to the French to handle the Indochinese cases as they thought best. At some appropriate time we should explain to the Indochinese states our own position in the matter.