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 Proposal
- Participants:
- Mr. Crosthwaite, UK Delegation
- Mr. Williams, UK Delegation
- Senator Fulbright, US Delegation
- Mr. Sisco, US Delegation
Mr. Crosthwaite asked to see us regarding our non-member participation proposal and left with us a legal memorandum which sets forth the reasons why the UK believe our proposal to be of dubious legality.1 Mr. Crosthwaite shifted his emphasis somewhat in the discussions. In our last conversation he had stressed the argument that our proposal would tend to derogate from the Security Council and enhance the position of the GA which was not a reliable organ from the point of view of the UK, particularly on colonial issues.
Today Mr. Crosthwaite said the UK cannot support our proposal because the GA in effect would be concluding a coup d’etat by taking into its own hands the participation of the 14 qualified applicants. He said the UK cannot support our proposal. If, however, we were willing to submit it to the International Court of Justice and in turn the International Court of Justice were to put its stamp of legal approval on it, then the UK was prepared to consider whether the proposal was politically feasible or desirable. Mr. Crosthwaite stressed that since our proposal is of dubious legality, it would stimulate the GA to further illegalities.
We stressed that in our view, as indicated in our own legal memorandum, our proposal was well founded in its juridical basis. We also said that it did not necessarily follow that a liberal construction of the Charter on the non-member participation proposal necessarily had any connection with future liberal interpretations which the GA might take. While we appreciated the legal views set forth by the UK, we [Page 1037] believed our legal case was equally strong. Moreover the political reasons for moving on this proposal are perhaps more important.
Recalling the arguments presented by Mr. Crosthwaite at our previous meeting, we also made the following points.
- 1.
- Our non-member participation proposal would not alter the actual or theoretical function and balance of the Security Council on the GA under the Charter.
- 2.
- It does not appear that the participation of the 14 qualified applicants would alter the balance of the GA to the detriment of the UK. The few states of the 14 qualified member group which might side with the anti-colonials would not make any appreciable difference with respect to GA consideration of colonial issues. Moreover there are among the group of 14 some states, such as Italy and Portugal whose policies could be expected to parallel those of the administering powers.
- 3.
- We assume that the US and UK are moving together and continue to favor the admission of the 14 qualified applicants as full members. If the participation of the 14 qualified non-members would make the GA more unreliable from the UK point of view, would this not also be the case if the same 14 participate as full members? We find it inconsistent that the UK would oppose non-member participation on the ground that the GA would be less reliable and at the same time favor participation of this group of 14 as full members.
- 4.
- The UK overestimates our influence with the Latin Americans. We do not have a 20 vote veto but what influence we have is largely based on common interests. There are very few issues in which our own influence with the Latin Americans have not at the same time redounded to the equal advantage of the UK.
- Not found in Department of State files.↩