IO Files: US/A/55
Memorandum of Conversation, by G. Hayden Ray nor of the United States Delegation Staff of Advisers34
Subject: Matters in Connection with General Assembly35
- 1.
- Slates. Mr. Gore-Booth36 this morning told me that we could now consider official the information he had previously given me that the British are supporting the candidacy of India37 for the Security [Page 217] Council instead of Belgium. He said that the British had explained this to Mr. Spaak. He added that they had made no commitments to the Indians for next year in case they were defeated this year on the basis that to support them next year would almost be to sabotage the then candidacy of Canada. He also told me that the British Delegation had expressed preference for Poland rather than White Russia for the ECOSOC. He also informed me that he understood Greece had been campaigning among the Latin American Delegations with some success.
He informed me that the British Delegation had discussed at some length whether or not it would be wise to approach the Soviets with the objective of attempting to reach an agreement on the Council slates. He said their decision had been not to attempt this as success would seem very unlikely and it did not seem to them that any very good purpose would be served by such an attempt. He said they felt that it should be unnecessary in view of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure which eliminate nominations from the floor and provide for secret balloting. He did say that he had been instructed to inform the Soviets what the British views are on this matter and to solicit as a matter of information whatever views they might have on it.
[Here follows discussion of other matters.]
- Mr. Raynor’s Departmental position was Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of European Affairs.↩
- The record of the discussions between members and staff of the United States Delegation and members and staff of other delegations on all matters relating to affairs of the General Assembly is found in the documentary series US/A/1 ff. in the IO Files.↩
- P. H. Gore-Booth, Assistant Principal Adviser to the British Delegation.↩
-
Mr. Gore-Booth had first mentioned this to Mr. Raynor on October 21 “unofficially” (IO Files, document US/A/42). Also on October 24, in a general conversation with Mr. Raynor, Mr. Michael Tandy of the British Delegation “… wondered what we would think of the substitution of India for Syria on the Security Council slate. I was non-committal”. (IO Files, document US/A/66) Mr. Tandy in a conversation on the same date informed Mr. Robert McClintock of the United States Delegation “… in confidence that the British were considerably disturbed by the pretentions of India for a seat on the Security Council. He said the British were fearful that if they did not acquiesce to the Indian claim ‘the Indian Delegation would throw itself in the arms of the Soviet bloc’. Mr. Tandy said that the British Delegation had assumed that if India were to be sponsored for membership in the Security Council it would automatically replace Belgium as a candidate.” (IO Files, document US/A/49).
The Government of India broached its candidacy officially to the Department of State on October 23 when Sir Girja Bajpai, Indian Agent General, called on the Director of the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs (Henderson). Mr. Henderson in his memorandum of conversation recorded that after Sir Girja had stated the position of the Government of India that “Sir Girja then said that he did not know what our position was and whether we had already committed ourselves to some other country to replace Egypt. Mr. Henderson said that it was not our policy definitely to commit ourselves prior to the elections in New York but that the Department had drawn up a provisional slate on which Syria tentatively appeared as a replacement for Egypt. He stated that our slate was drawn up at a time when we were unaware of India’s possible candidacy and at a time when it appeared desirable to include an Arab country because of developments in that area. Mr. Henderson added that aside from the question of regionalism, we felt strongly that small nations should receive appropriate recognition on the Council in order to avoid the implication that the Council was being packed with large powers. He went on to say that India certainly could not be included in the category of small nations and that indeed India was on the verge of emerging even from the category of middle powers. He said, however, that there was nothing to prevent reconsideration of our tentative slate, that he appreciated the cogency of India’s claim for membership, and that he would be glad to submit the Government of India’s arguments for inclusion to the proper committee of the Department for consideration.” (501.BC/10–2346 and IO Files, document US/A/56)
↩