UNP files, lot 59 D 237, “Membership”
Memorandum of Conversation, by an Adviser of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly (Sisco)
- Subject:
- Non-Member Participation
- Participants:
- Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, UK
- Mr. P. M. Crosthwaite, UK
- Mr. W. Sykes, UK
- Senator Fulbright, US
- Mr. Joseph Sisco, US
We discussed our non-member participation proposal once again and we stressed the following: that our legal case, in our view, is as good as that presented by the UK; that we do not believe that General Assembly action on our non-member participation proposal will stimulate the GA to take future actions which the UK believe to be of dubious legality; that submitting our proposal to the ICJ would only delay the opportunity for non-member participation; that we do not believe the participation of the 14 qualified applicants would alter the balance of the GA to the detriment of the UK or the US, but rather the states could be expected to make a contribution to the work of the UN.
The UK really made no new points, but there was a different emphasis in their argumentation. The legal argument was not stressed as much by Mr. Lloyd. When it was pointed out to Mr. Lloyd that it appeared inconsistent for the UK to say on the one hand that they oppose non-member participation of the 14 because it would increase their difficulties in the colonial field, and on the other that they favored the full membership of these 14, he made the following statement in strict confidence. His Government believes the best posture on the membership question is the one which they have maintained all along, namely, that it is the Soviet veto which is keeping out the 14 qualified applicants as full members. In actuality, in light of the difficulties which a number of these states could make as full members, the UK, while maintaining its present posture, is not enthusiastic about their admission as full members or on any other basis. If, Selwyn Lloyd continued, we could get Italy in alone for example, the UK believes this would be politically desirable. He doubted very much that it was politically wise and realistic to bring in so many possible trouble makers, either on the basis of our proposal or on the basis of full membership, and he argued that this would neither serve UK nor US interests.
During the course of the conversation, it was also made clear that if we go ahead on our non-member participation proposal, that the [Page 1044] UK is likely to introduce a proposal referring it to the ICJ. They also stressed that the European countries are firm against our proposal.
Our impression, as a result of this conversation and the two previous ones, is that the UK is firm on its position.