Hickerson–Murphy–Key files, lot 58 D 33, “Membership”
The Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Key) to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Lodge)1
Dear Cabot: I am sorry I could not reply earlier to your letter of March 15 on the UN membership question. However, it seemed desirable to wait to give you an answer until a meeting could be held with Mr. Murphy, Mr. Phleger, and the interested Assistant Secretaries.
We had such a meeting last week and carefully reviewed the whole problem. It was decided that, however much we wanted to see the states we favor admitted, we should maintain our position against any trade involving the admission of Soviet-sponsored applicants in return for the admission of others. The overriding reason for this decision was the connection between the membership problem and the Chinese representation issue. Although these two questions are technicallly different matters, we all agreed that, practically speaking, it would be difficult if not impossible to keep them separate, and that our consent to the admission of Soviet-sponsored candidates despite their conduct would make it harder for us to hold the line on keeping out the Chinese Communists.
It was felt that even if we were not faced with this major problem, there would be several other considerations to take into account against a trade on membership at this time. First, the imminence of the Geneva Conference would make any move toward a deal particularly untimely. Second, it would be difficult for us to agree to admit Soviet-sponsored applicants in view of the present language of article 4. Third, Soviet agreement to a trade on terms acceptable to us would be extremely unlikely. If, in spite of this, we indicated we might go along with a deal provided certain terms were met, and if the Soviets rejected these terms, it would then be harder for us to prevent the adoption of the Soviet package deal or some “compromise” proposal unacceptable to us.
I think we might be able to discourage a serious move toward a deal if we make our position clear to Belaunde before his Good Offices Committee starts to consult with other Security Council members. I therefore suggest that you tell him that the Department has considered the [Page 997] matter and that we continue to oppose a deal on membership that includes Soviet-sponsored applicants and stand on our position of favoring separate consideration of each candidate on its merits. You might also wish to inform the UK and French Delegations that there has been no change in our position.
I have mentioned this question to the Secretary. He feels that it is a close question but as things now stand, the balance is against a present “package” proposal.
We have just received the report of your conversation with Belaunde of April 10. You may inform him that I would be very glad to discuss the membership question with him if he still wishes to come to Washington after you have informed him of the Department’s position as outlined above.
Sincerely yours,
- Drafted by Paul W. Jones (UNP) and cleared in draft with the Bureau of European Affairs (Apr. 7), the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs (Apr. 13), and the Office of Eastern European Affairs (Apr. 13).↩