UNP files, lot 59 D 237, “Membership”
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for
International Organization Affairs (Key) to
the Secretary of State1
secret
[Washington,] October 18, 1954.
- Subject:
- US Plan for Non-Member Participation in UNGA.
Reactions in New York to our proposal for non-member participation in the
General Assembly, both from UN Members and
from the qualified applicants, have been largely negative. Nevertheless,
because we wish to do everything we can to end the membership deadlock, we
would like to approach other Delegations in New York with the following
alternative plan:
- 1.
- Japan has expressed definite interest in non-member participation;
Italy has indicated readiness to reconsider its negative position if
there is a real and impelling reason (Tab A).2 We would suggest to these two states, as Key applicants whose position
would strongly affect Assembly reactions, that they renew their
standing applications, as other applicants have done, and in the
same communication state that, in line with their desire to accept
the obligations of the Charter and play their part in the UN, they would, if the GA sees fit, be willing to participate
as non-members to the extent such participation would be consistent
with GA procedures and Charter
provisions. We might then similarly approach the other qualified
applicants.
- 2.
- Assuming Japan, Italy and possibly others respond favorably, the
GA would (1) note the
declarations and extend to the states involved the privileges
discussed in our earlier proposal (Tab B);2 and
[Page 1050]
(2)
arrange for granting the same status to other qualified applicants
as they choose to request it.
- 3.
- Because many Members, particularly the UK, strongly oppose non-member participation on legal
grounds, they may propose reference of the matter to the ICJ for an advisory opinion. If the
majority favors this step, we would acquiesce. We believe chances
for a favorable Court opinion are good. Whatever the Court’s view
might be, the operation as a whole would put us in a relatively good
position vis-à-vis the applicants and the Charter Review Conference
and would keep the membership issue alive.
- 4.
- It is possible that Japan, Italy, and the bulk of the UN membership would not go along with
this new variant of our plan. In that case, we might have to limit
our action at this session to a description of our proposal in a
speech in the Committee, stating we were presenting it for further
consideration by governments in the event that the membership
deadlock continued.
- 5.
- The above proposal has been discussed with FE, EUR, and NEA, and those three bureaus have
cleared the attached draft telegram (Tab C) to the Delegation in New
York, subject to your decision.
Recommendation
That you authorize the Department to instruct the US Delegation to pursue the
foregoing course of action.
[Attachment—Tab C—Draft Telegram]
secret
[Washington,] October 18, 1954.
Re: Delga 75. While we think it
impractical and politically undesirable to single out Japan, we suggest
following plan for your consideration and possible action:
- 1.
- We note Japan definitely willing go forward with non-member
participation and as reported Rome’s 1412 possibly Italy also if
we make clear we attach importance its participation. We believe
there would be great advantages for UN in providing non-member participation status
these two states and have little doubt many other applicants
would also come along once non-member status established for
Italy and Japan. We have focused on Italy and Japan on basis
their population, resources, importance in Europe and Far East
respectively, potential contribution to UN and present broad participation various
activities UN system (e.g. Italy
in TC, regional economic
agencies, specialized agencies, etc.). We see disadvantages in
distinguishing Japan and Italy as ex-enemy states for this
purpose both because it would give Communists propaganda
ammunition and because it could undermine US position re:
Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania.
- 2.
- We would suggest Italy and Japan renew standing applications
for UN membership in new messages
to Secretary General as other applicants have done, and in same
communication state that in line with desire to accept
obligations of Charter and play part in UN they
[Page 1051]
would, if GA sess [sees?] fit, be
willing participate in GA in
non-member status. In order avoid possible affront their
prestige and dignity exact language should be carefully worked
out, perhaps along some such line as a statement that if it
seems likely affirmative action on their applications will be
indefinitely delayed, they would be willing, in interest making
more effective contribution to attainment UN objectives, to give serious consideration to
possibility participating in Assembly to extent such
participation would be consistent with Assembly procedures and
Charter provisions.
- 3.
- Assuming Japan and Italy agree, we might formally approach all
14 qualified applicants to see whether interested in making
similar declaration. Purpose this procedure would be to enable
ROK and other applicants
interested in non-member participation to act at same time as
Japan and Italy if they wish. It would be understood if they
preferred to delay response way would be clear for them to make
decision any time. In view Australian item Laos and Cambodia
these two states might wish withhold response until committee
action completed that item.
- 4.
-
GA in turn would: (1) note these
declarations and extend to Japan and Italy (as well as others
making such declarations) privileges set forth in Gadel 1 and (2) state that if any
other applicants found qualified for admission desire make
similar declaration, Secretary General authorized extend same
privileges to them. Alternatively, if other delegations consider
that (2) constitutes improper delegation authority in important
matter relating to membership, GA
could simply declare willingness consider favorably granting
similar status other qualified applicants.
- 5.
- If UK and others insist any
such arrangement illegal and propose reference to ICJ for advisory opinion, we would
state our belief that such an arrangement constitutes healthy
development of Charter, like Uniting for Peace Program, and that
we see nothing in Charter precluding it. However, if GA insists on ICJ reference, arrangements could
perhaps be made for Court to deal with matter through summary
proceedings before current GA
adjourns. We feel good chance ICJ would rule favorably and consider in any event
risk Court reference worth taking since even if negative
opinion, it would put US in relatively good position vis-à-vis
applicants and Charter Review Conference.
- 6.
- Suggest you discuss situation on basis above with key
delegations in New York starting with UK, and with Japan and Italy. In discussion with
latter Gadel should indicate
our feeling that if they go along, prospect reasonably good for
favorable GA action and little
question widespread support for ICJ reference if we decide follow that course. In
your conversation with UK made
clear US cannot accept extreme views given Gadel by Lloyd and remains convinced,
as I
[Page 1052]
said in general
debate, power and influence UN
will progressively decline unless ways found bring all
peace-loving states into organization. US cannot believe
Lloyd’s remarks
represent considered UK judgment.
We feel strongly UN cannot
satisfactorily fulfill its important tasks when qualified states
continue to be excluded from its activities and cannot agree to
indefinite passive acquiescence present deadlock. On contrary we
believe must actively explore every proper method solve problem
or minimize its destructive consequences.
- 7.
- We appreciate difficulty of persuading British and other
Europeans in light their rather strong reactions as reported
urtels. However, we are
inclined to proceed with this approach notwithstanding their
hesitancy. We consider this an organizational question on which
honest differences of opinion may be threshed out in Committee
discussions and on which we should be willing calmly to accept
GA verdict.
