Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

IO Files: US/A/M (Chr.)/7 (Part 2)

Minutes of the Second Part of the Seventh Meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at New York, Pennsylvania Hotel, October 22, 1946, 11:30 a.m.

New York, October 22, 1946, 11:30 a.m.

secret

[Here follow list of names of persons (20) present,³⁰ and brief mention of the topics discussed by the Delegation in the earlier part of the meeting.]

Election of Officers of GA Committees

Mr. Sandifer, in raising this problem, pointed out that while most of the officers who were elected at the first part of the session in London would be present at the current meetings, according to present information, the Chairmen of Committees 2, 3, and 4 as well as four of the Rapporteurs and two Vice Chairmen would not be present. He pointed out that the absence of the Chairman created a problem regarding the composition of the General Committee.³¹ He presented for approval the recommendations contained in Document US/A/26.³² These provided that the United States should support a proposal to elect as the three new chairmen the heads of the Delegations from those States which held the chairmanships in London, and that the United States should generally favor filling the vacancies for Vice Chairmen and Rapporteurs by election of members of the same delegations which held the positions in London.

It was brought out in the discussion that Foreign Minister Olszewski of Poland would probably be adequate as the new Chairman of Committee 2 although his knowledge of French was only fair and he did not speak English. In response to a similar question regarding Ambassador Blanco as Chairman of Committee 4, Ambassador Dawson stated that, although elderly and not in good health, Blanco was an experienced diplomat with excellent knowledge of French and fair knowledge of English, and that he would be adequate as Chairman.

Decision

The four recommendations in Document US/A/26 were approved.

Election of New Members to the Security Council

Mr. Sandifer explained that it would be necessary to elect three States to non-permanent membership on the Security Council and presented the following list of candidates:

Candidates	Alternates
Colombia	Any other American republic which the Latin American Delegation may agree upon except Argentina and the Dominican Republic.
Belgium	Denmark or Norway
Syria	Greece or Iran

Mr. Sandifer explained that these countries had been selected after careful consideration in the light of the requirements of Article 23, par. 1, in order to preserve the balance of membership in councils as originally worked out at the London meetings.

Mr. Dulles pointed out that, in view of the method of determining membership on the Atomic Energy Commission, this change in the composition of the Security Council would result in the replacement likewise of three members on the AEC which seemed unfortunate. He raised the possibility of not altering the Commission. Mr. Fahy stated that the question had been explored and it was felt that nothing could be done to prevent the replacement, adding that the new representatives of the AEC would have to be educated on atomic energy problems and they and their governments brought up to date on the development of views within the AEC.³³

Decision

The Delegation approved the support of Colombia, Belgium, and Syria as non-permanent members of the Security Council (with the qualification mentioned below with respect to Greece).

Election of Members to ECOSOC

Mr. Sandifer explained that it would be necessary to elect six new members to the ECOSOC to replace those whose terms had expired and presented the following as recommended candidates:

• Uruguay
• The Netherlands
• Turkey
• Poland or Byelorussian S. S. R.
• New Zealand
• United States

Mr. Sandifer pointed out that although this slate would reduce the representation of the Eastern European countries from four to three, the replacement of Yugoslavia by New Zealand had been made in view of the fact that when the elections were held in London, New Zealand withdrew in favor of Yugoslavia with the understanding that she would receive support at the next election. It was generally recognized in the Delegation, however, that this portion of the slate would be likely to create the greatest difficulties.

Senator Vandenberg raised serious question as to the exclusion of Greece. He pointed out that she was being removed from ECOSOC, that she was denied a seat on the Security Council, that she had no significant post in any of the commissions, and that she was forced again and again at the Paris Conference to accept adverse decisions. He expressed fear that with such a succession of disappointments at the hands of her allies, Greece would begin to question whether she had made the right choice of partners. The Senator felt that he could not overemphasize the problem in view of the fact that Greece was in such a key position from the point of view of the United States peace pattern.

General discussion followed of possible recommended candidates for whom Greece might be substituted. Mr. Sandifer pointed out that to give Greece a position on the ECOSOC would require replacement either of Turkey or The Netherlands, which would be difficult. Mr. Wadsworth suggested that to a certain degree the position and importance of Turkey is similar to that of Greece.

Senator Vandenberg suggested that it might be possible to substitute Greece for Syria on our Security Council slate but Mr. Wadsworth brought out the point that it seemed possible that a complaint involving Greece might come before the Security Council in the near future and that it might be better, therefore, if Greece were not a member.

Senator Vandenberg and Senator Connally both expressed the view, in which there was general concurrence, that the matter should be brought to the attention of the Secretary.

Decision

At the suggestion of Senator Austin, the Delegation approved the recommended slate subject to a further attempt to rearrange it to include Greece after consultation with the Secretary of State.

Election of Members to the Trusteeship Council

The Delegation then turned its attention to the recommended slate for the Trusteeship Council in case it should be organized at this session. Mr. Sandifer explained that our recommended preference was for Egypt, Denmark and Philippines for the elective positions to the Council in the order named.

With respect to Egypt, Mr. Dulles raised a question as to the political desirability of supporting an Arab State for membership in the light of the Palestine problem. Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Douglas likewise queried whether it was necessary to pick Egypt if only one member was to be elected. The suggestion was therefore made that Egypt might be placed as second choice rather than first.

After some discussion, Mr. Dulles pointed out that the problem was at the present time a remote one in view of the uncertainty as to whether or not the Trusteeship Council would be organized and an elective member chosen at this session. He moved that the matter be deferred.

Decision

The Delegation agreed that a decision on candidates for elective members to the Trusteeship Council should be deferred for the present.

30. For the composition of the U.S. Delegation to the General Assembly and its advisory staff, see pp. 37–42.
31. This subject was discussed informally on October 19 between Mr. Andrew Cordier, Executive Assistant to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Lie) and Mr. Durward V. Sandifer, Principal Adviser, United States Delegation Staff (Chief of the Division of International Organization Affairs in the Department) and two members of Mr. Sandifer’s staff. Mr. Cordier “indicated that Secretary-General Lie was in favor of allowing the vice-chairmen of these committees to serve as chairmen. … [Mr. Sandifer] expressed the view that it would be more satisfactory to elect a new chairman from the state holding the chairmanship in London, so that the same distribution of states on the General Committee would be continued and the principle would be recognized that chairmen were elected in part for their individual capacities. Mr. Cordier expressed sympathy with this view and urged that some work be done on it prior to the Thursday morning plenary session when such elections as were decided upon would take place.” (IO Files, document US/A/19) The United States Delegation staff had produced two working papers by October 21 which embodied in tabular form the principle of selection of new committee chairmen from the country holding the position at London. (10 Files, documents US/A/24 and US/A/25, neither printed)
32. Not printed. This U.S. Delegation position paper is found in the IO Files.
33. For documentation on this subject, see pp. 712 ff.