500.CC(PC)/11–2845: Telegram
The Acting United States Representative on the Preparatory Commission (Stevenson) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 29—1:15 a.m.]
12461. Copre 421. The intensive campaign by the British Government both in the press and among PreCo delegations, particularly delegations from Latin America, in favor of locating the United Nations headquarters in Europe, has so far had three results.
First, it has tended to solidify minority sentiment in favor of Europe.
Second, it has tended to strengthen the trend toward the East Coast among Latin American countries.
[Page 1481]Third, it has caused some confusion and doubt as to the real attitude of the United States. The British seem to be deliberately misinterpreting the expressions of neutrality we have made both in Washington and London to the effect that we would perhaps really prefer to see the headquarters located in Europe.
A London Times despatch from Washington this morning is typical of stories appearing in the London press and inspired by official British spokesmen. After referring to “somewhat unfriendly” reference in New York Times to “lobbying” by the British for Europe, London Times correspondent says “in the considered opinion of a number of highly competent American citizens, it would be a grave, even tragic, error to place these headquarters within the territory of any great power, whether the United States or another.” London Times further suggests many Americans feel that organization would be subject to much undesirable lobbying and pressure groups in the United States and the probability that America’s welcome would change in a few years to widespread criticism, demands for congressional investigations of UNO, protests against the loss of tax revenues, et cetera.
Other London-inspired stories besides making usual arguments for Europe say it would be unfair to make the decision now when so many European states are not represented in UNO.
American correspondents are of course cabling stories on this intensive British campaign and it is having its effect on the representatives of American cities here. I am impressed by the apparent insensitivity of the British Government to the effect of such stories upon American public opinion toward Britain, especially in view of the necessity of gaining public support in the United States for the contemplated loan to Great Britain46 and for other implementation of our economic foreign policy.
I have formally restated the United States position in the following press statement.
“The United States Government has repeatedly made it clear that it is not seeking the permanent headquarters of the United Nations, but that if the United Nations Organization decides to locate the headquarters in the United States, it will be welcome.
Representatives of several American cities or states have come to London to ask consideration by the Preparatory Commission of various cities in the United States for the permanent headquarters of the United Nations.
I wish to make clear that these representatives come to London on their own responsibility and their presence is not to be taken as indicating any desire of the United States Government to influence the selection of the headquarters of the United Nations.
[Page 1482]If the United Nations do choose the United States, the United States Government will take no position as between different localities within the United States. That is a choice which will be left entirely to the other United Nations and the United States Government will not seek to influence the decision in any way.”
We are also taking steps informally to make clear to other delegations in accordance with your instructions (Preco 30547) that the United States position on the headquarters is unchanged.
The deputy delegate of Chile told us today that British efforts have not yet made any converts to Europe among Latin American delegations. He said he was almost certain that every Latin American delegate would vote in favor of the United States but made the reservation that he did not know the Uruguayan attitude. He felt, however, that a majority of the East Coast republics would vote for a location in the eastern part of the United States and said that the remoteness of San Francisco impressed many delegations adversely. He mentioned in passing, however, that the Colombian delegate had specific instructions to vote only for San Francisco. He also stated with reference to Preco 322 [321]48 that British Chiefs of Mission in all Latin American capitals had been instructed to make the démarche described therein.
AP poll on U.S. versus Europe confirms this information conveyed by Chilean, though indicating a possible weakening; of 14 Latin American countries reached, 11 stated preference for U.S. but Uruguay, Ecuador and Venezuela said they were not ready to indicate their preference. In this connection MacEachen,49 who had been originally proposed by Latin Americans as a desirable choice for chairman of one of the committees, was proposed specifically for Committee 8 by the British and nominated by Noel-Baker.
AP was also informed by Syria that the Arab League would vote as a unit and had not yet decided between U.S. and Europe. AP poll indicates that if Arab League voted for Europe, outcome of vote now might be either just short of a two-thirds majority for the U.S. or one or two more than a two-thirds majority.
[Page 1483]I believe that British efforts are directed toward three objectives in the following order of preference:
First, a decision in favor of Europe. This, of course, they recognize as most unlikely.
Second, no decision on a permanent headquarters either in PreCo or the first assembly. This result would be achieved by building up a minority sufficient to prevent a two-thirds vote for the United States.
Third, a decision in favor of the East Coast of the United States.
Following is report of first meeting of Committee 8:50
After talking privately with me, MacEachen of Uruguay, the chairman of Committee 8, proposed at the opening of today’s meeting that a small subcommittee representative of the six continents should be appointed to hold hearings at which delegations of American and any other cities could present their case. He proposed that at the same time the whole committee should proceed with its work and reach decisions in the following order: First, on the criteria; second, on the continent; third, on the country; and fourth on the city.
Spaak and Noel-Baker, supported by the Netherlands and Egypt, led opposition to holding any hearings until the criteria had first been considered and a decision reached. China and Yugoslavia supported the proposal of the chairman. I expressed the hope that the committee would find it possible to adopt a procedure which would enable the various municipal delegations to present their case promptly. I pointed out that they came to London in good faith without any encouragement by the United States Government and that they included a number of distinguished men with important responsibilities awaiting their speedy return to the United States. I also expressed the hope that whatever procedure the committee agreed upon, it would be one which would enable the Preparatory Commission to make a definitive recommendation to the General Assembly on the location of the permanent headquarters.
Canada then proposed as a compromise that the sub-committee be appointed immediately, that the general committee consider the criteria at its meetings Thursday and Friday and that the sub-committee begin its hearings on Saturday. This proposal finally received unanimous support and several delegates, including Spaak, expressed the opinion that if agreement on the criteria is not reached by then, it [Page 1484] was made clear that the sub-committee hearings would begin on Saturday in any case. The hearings will be open to the public.
Australia, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, the Netherlands and Yugoslavia were elected to the sub-committee.
The general committee then began consideration of section 2 of chapter 10 of the Executive Committee report, paragraph by paragraph, but reached no conclusion on the first paragraph in the half hour remaining before adjournment.
- For documentation regarding this subject, see vol. vi, pp. 1 ff.↩
- Telegram 10176, November 21, 7 p.m., not printed; it transmitted the text of a memorandum entitled, “Comments and Suggestions on ExCom Report for Guidance of US Delegation”. Regarding the question of location, as between Europe and the United States, the memorandum stated “… you should continue to maintain neutrality, indicating that if a majority of United Nations so desire United States would be glad to have headquarters within its borders but is not seeking it. You should abstain from voting on this question.” (500.CC (PC/11–2145)↩
- Telegram 10298, November 27, 7 p.m., not printed. It repeated telegrams from Asuncion and Rio de Janeiro, describing approaches made by the British to the Governments in those capitals regarding support for the British view on the location of the headquarters of the United Nations. (500.CC (PC)/11–2745)↩
- R. E. MacEachen, Uruguayan Representative on the Preparatory Commission.↩
- Committee 8 was the Preparatory Commission’s committee on “General Questions”, within whose competence fell the question of determining the permanent location of the United Nations. For the proceedings in Committee 8 regarding this subject, see Preparatory Commission document, Committee 8: General Questions, Summary Record of Meetings 24 November–24 December 1945, pp. 13 ff.; the verbatim text of proceedings is located in the United Nations Archives.↩