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

IO files, SD/A/C.1/446

Position Paper Prepared in the Department of State for the United States Delegation to the Ninth Regular Session of the General Assembly

confidential

[Washington,] September 9, 1954.

Admission of New Members

the problem

Nineteen membership applications are pending, including fourteen non-Soviet applicants (Austria, Cambodia, Ceylon, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Portugal, Vietnam) and five Soviet-sponsored applicants (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania and Outer Mongolia). In addition, the North Korean and Vietminh regimes have submitted communications purporting to be membership applications.

In the Security Council the Soviet Union has vetoed all the non-Soviet candidates, while the required majority has never approved the admission of the Soviet candidates or the Soviet package proposal for the simultaneous admission of the five Soviet-sponsored applicants and nine of the non-Soviet applicants (all but the Republic of Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia).

The General Assembly has become increasingly concerned over the stalemate. A Special Committee established by the Seventh Session reviewed various proposals, none of which was found acceptable, and was unable to make any specific recommendations. The Eighth Assembly appointed a Committee of Good Offices (Egypt, the Netherlands, Peru) “empowered to consult with members of the Security Council with the object of exploring the possibilities of reaching an understanding which would facilitate the admission of new members in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter.” This Committee has carried on informal discussions, apparently without success. It has not yet submitted any report, but so far as we know, it has made no progress.

Australia has submitted a new agenda item on the admission of Laos and Cambodia. No explanation of this proposal has been made, but since the applications of both states are already pending, presumably the purpose is to focus Assembly attention on them in the hope the Indochina settlement may now make their admission possible.

In his annual report this year the Secretary General referred to the membership impasse, emphasizing the number of states absent from the United Nations, a fact that he regarded as lessening the effectiveness and influence of the Organization. He suggested that “if it does not seem possible to break the present log-jam all at once, a beginning might be made with some of those cases which do not directly enter into the balance between the conflicting camps”. There have been rumors in New York suggesting the possibility of a “deal” of such a limited character. In this connection admission of Finland, Libya and Austria has been mentioned. Accordingly, at the Ninth Session it is possible that some proposal of this character may be put forward.

united states position

1. The United States should indicate its support for the fourteen non-Soviet applicants and opposition to the Soviet-sponsored applicants and also to the Soviet package proposal, and should call upon the Soviet Union to abandon its arbitrary membership policies.

2. If a proposal to admit a selected few states (e.g. Finland, Austria, Libya) is made, or if Australia submits a proposal or separate proposals for admission of Laos and Cambodia, subject to instructions from the Department, the Delegation should seek a separate vote on each of the applicants proposed and should vote for any of the non-Soviet applicants.

3. The United States should oppose the Soviet package proposal if it is resubmitted. If the proposal is likely to receive majority support, the United States may seek to amend it in such a way that it would become a resolution requesting the Security Council to keep under consideration all pending applications and reaffirming the principle that each applicant should be considered separately on the basis of the criteria of Article 4.

4. The United States believes that, as long as there is no prospect for the admission of qualified applicants to United Nations membership, it would be desirable for the Assembly to devise arrangements for non-member participation in the Assembly without the right to vote. The Delegation should indicate these views in consultation with other delegations and seek to obtain majority agreement on appropriate arrangements for such of the non-Soviet applicants as may apply.

comment

The United States strongly supports the admission of Italy, Japan, and the other non-Soviet applicants and deplores the fact that their admission has been blocked by the Soviet veto. It opposes the admission of the Soviet-sponsored applicants on the ground that they have failed to demonstrate that they meet the basic Charter qualification; and opposes the Soviet package proposal because it is contrary to the Charter principles, reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in 1948, that each application should be considered separately on its own merits, because it includes the Soviet applicants and because it omits others we strongly favor.

In light of the suggestion in the Secretary General’s report and the widespread view that new efforts should be made to break the membership impasse, and apart from the Australian proposal for admission of Laos and Cambodia, it is possible that a proposal will be made for admission of several applicants selected as a sort of “middle group”, not directly aligned with either the Soviet bloc or the free world. They would be drawn from the fourteen non-Soviet applicants. Presumably no such proposal will be made without a prior favorable commitment by the USSR. If the USSR is now prepared to abandon its insistence upon admission of all Soviet-sponsored candidates, we will be confronted with a new situation.

Obviously the United States would not wish to take the initiative in choosing any of the fourteen non-Soviet applicants for special treatment. On the other hand, should some other Member make such a proposal, in light of our frequently expressed support for each of the fourteen non-Soviet applicants, all of whom we regard as fully qualified for admission, we would not wish to oppose several applicants simply because some other qualified states have not been proposed. However, in order to make clear that the United States is not departing from its established opposition to any sort of a “package deal”, recommendation 2 above provides that a separate vote should be sought on each applicant.

It is recognized that the three states currently mentioned in rumors in New York—Austria, Finland, and Libya—cannot be depended upon to add to the majority supporting free world positions. At the same time we would not wish to block their admission on this ground. Moreover, the possibility of only a few of the non-Soviet applicants being admitted has always existed.

On several past occasions the Assembly has taken separate votes on each of the applicants and by overwhelming majorities endorsed the qualifications of the fourteen non-Soviet applicants for admission. Since all of them have now been declared qualified by the Assembly, little point is seen for seeking this year a new resolution endorsing each non-Soviet application. Nevertheless, should applicant states not included in any proposals wish to have their names submitted again for Assembly action, we would initiate or support such action. (In any event, regardless of what happens in the Assembly, assuming several applicants obtain favorable Soviet votes in the Assembly, we may wish to consider putting to a vote in the Security Council the applications of all the non-Soviet applicants.)

It will be important to take up the Australian proposal for admission of Laos and Cambodia in such a way that the Assembly will not become involved in substantive discussion of the Indochina settlement.

In order to do everything possible for Italy and Japan, the United States has considered arrangements which would give non-Members excluded from membership by the Soviet veto the right to participate in the Assembly on a regular basis without vote. Italy thus far has not been interested and Japan, while it previously indicated some interest, has just informed USUN that it is not interested at present. Nevertheless, the United States continues to believe that, as long as there is no prospect for admission of qualified applicants to the United Nations, it would be desirable for the Assembly to make arrangements for non-member participation in the Assembly. These views should be discussed with other delegations and if majority support for a proposal for non-member participation is forthcoming, such action should be sought. In order to limit such arrangements to the non-Soviet applicants, the Assembly would provide that they would be open to those applicants that have received seven favorable votes in the Security Council and whose qualifications have been endorsed by the Assembly.