310.2/10–854: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Lodge) to the Department of State
priority
Delga 75. For the Secretary from Lodge. Re: Non-Member Participation in UN. USGADel, including Sen Fulbright, have had number exploratory conversations with Key Dels regarding our non-member participation proposal. Fol is our analysis:
Commonwealth:
UK firmly opposed. They contend our proposal of dubious legality. Lloyd, in a long and revealing talk with Fulbright on strictly confidential [Page 1046] basis gave what appears to be real reason for strong UK opposition. They fear that participation of 14 qualified applicants will cause increasing difficulty for them by making GA less reliable on number of issues, particularly colonial field. They insist that they wld have to put our proposal to the ICJ if we moved ahead.
When it was pointed out to Lloyd that it appeared inconsistent for UK to say on the one hand that they oppose non-member participation of the 14 because it wld increase their difficulties in the colonial field, and on the other that they favored the full membership of these 14, he made the fol statement in strict confidence. His Govt 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 cld 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 cld get Italy in alone for example, the UK believes this wld 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 wld neither serve UK nor US interests. (Memo of conversation being pouched.)
He made it clear that Nepal wld be either under the influence of China or India, that Finland was under the guns of the Soviet Union, that Portugal wld not want to come in because of the colonial question, that Ireland wld be a constant source of irritation and embarassment to the UK and that, in his opinion, altogether too much weight was given in the GA to small countries out of all proportion to their size. He did not want to increase the number of such countries, which was already too large.
Casey, Australia, personally found no objection but wld not commit govt unless substantial support prevalent for our proposal.
Canada is not enthusiastic, with some legal doubts, though they indicated it might be difficult for them to oppose our proposal if we went ahead. South Africa negative. New Zealand moderately interested, but noncommittal.
Europe:
France and Belgium both negative, and Netherlands doubtful on grounds applicants themselves do not favor our proposal.
Arab-Asian:
India strongly opposed. Arab reactions cautious. Entezam (Iran) indicated coolness and reported lack of interest other Dels. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Ethiopia and Israel still studying proposal, but no enthusiasm [Page 1047] indicated. Turkey undecided, Kyrou (Greece) does not believe our proposal practical, and Saudi Arabia and Liberia negative.
Latin American States:
Of 8 LA states approached, 3 (Peru, Mexico and El Salvador) favored plan, and one other, Colombia, probably wld support it.
Qualified Applicants:
Out of 14 applicants we consider eligible under our proposal, Japan favorable, ROK enthusiastic and informal views of Jordan appear to be favorable. It is clear that 3 (Italy, Austria and Portugal) are entirely negative and informal reactions from two others (Ireland and Finland) indicate they will also be negative.
Reasons given by members in addition to those indicated above include fol:
Non-member participation plan rather than constitute interim step towards full membership, will be substitute for it and will not contribute to breaking the log jam; members point to unenthusiastic responses of most non-members themselves, the latter of whom see non-member proposal as second class role of sovereign states.
The lack of enthusiasm for the non-member participation plan added to the extreme desirability of not having a conflict with the Brit, wld make me unhesitatingly recommend that we drop this proposal at this session. The reason I do not make this recommendation is because of the great importance which I attach to the change in the Japanese attitude. Remembering our conversations in Tokyo in August of 1953 and the great progress in Japanese thinking as shown by indication PriMin Yoshida is presently in support of this scheme. I am very reluctant to throw all this good work away. I hope that Dept will be able to think of a definition which covers Japan alone and brings her in as a non-member in the spirit of the proposal. If such a device cld be formulated, we might try putting it to the Brit simply on a Japanese basis alone, without bringing up all the other countries to which UK objects.