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

501.AA/4–1046

Minutes of First Meeting of the Departmental Team on Admission of New Members to the United Nations, Department of State, Washington, April 9, 1946

Washington, April 9, 1946

Participants:49	OA:Mr. Sandifer
	IS: Mr. Adams
	EUR: Mr. Raynor
	SEA: Mr. Landon
	RL: Mr. Wilson
	[NEA]: Mr. Satterthwaite
	OA: Miss Fosdick
	OA: Mr. Popper

The first meeting of the Departmental Team on the admission of new members to the United Nations, organized pursuant to a decision of the United Nations Liaison Committee,⁵⁰ was held at 2:00 P.M., April 9, in the Office of Mr. D. V. Sandifer.

Mr. Sandifer opened the meeting with a statement on the status of the Albanian application and explained the proposal which had originated in New York, to postpone consideration of the application by referring the entire question of new membership to the Committee of Experts on the ground that it was necessary to determine methods of procedure before moving to consider specific applications. It was the sense of the meeting that, on the basis of the information hitherto at hand, the original policy paper on Albania⁵¹ provided a better method of procedure. It was pointed out that the proposal for a delay by reference to the procedural problem would put us in a vulnerable position, since we might be voted down on it and would then have to veto the Albanian application in the Council. The possibility was also raised that if, as the Russians desired, the consideration of Rules of Procedure was accelerated and completed within a few weeks, we should then be confronted with the necessity of a veto. Mr. Raynor remarked that we did not want to veto the Albanian application but rather to agree to the admission of Albania in return for Soviet concessions on applications favored by the United States. He stated that Mr. Bohlen⁵² had seemed confident that we could secure postponement of the Albanian case through the policy originally laid down, but that others, notably Mr. Noyes, had not been so optimistic. Mr. Raynor said that he would press for adherence to the original policy statement in New York and that he expected the British to follow the same line, perhaps even vetoing the admission of Albania on grounds of substaiice rather than procedure.

Mr. Satterthwaite, who was at the UNRRA Council meeting at Atlantic City, remarked that the Russians had probably used the case of Albania there to pave the way for its consideration in New York. He was of the opinion that we could expect the Soviets to insist on action before the Council.

Mr. Adams stated that at a meeting of the Liaison Committee last Friday (April 5) the view was expressed that we should take the initiative in preparing a resolution on the question of admissions, for introduction in the Council. He pointed out that this would be a logical outgrowth of our position at London and that it might be used to invite qualified states not now members to prepare their application for submission in July or August. There was some discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of our taking the lead on this subject, particularly since we had been continually in the forefront of the discussions in London. The question was raised as to what advantage would be gained if we brought the matter up in case the Russians and the Yugoslavs did not do so. Miss Fosdick suggested the desirability of an amendment to any resolution proposed by other states, which under the Rules would be voted on first. A decision was taken to prepare a preliminary draft resolution for possible introduction, and to consider it at a Team meeting on April 10.

From a brief review of the states qualified to apply for membership, it appeared that Iceland was the only state in the area covered by EUR now ready to apply, and Sweden could easily be made ready. Mr. Raynor stated that EUR would try to arrange for an application by Italy before the other ex-enemy states—preferably along with the application of Austria, since it was not desired that Austria join before Italy. Mr. Landon noted that the Department wished Siam to apply as soon as possible. Italy, Austria and Siam, it was felt, might all be regarded in one sense as victims of aggression for which some special treatment might be appropriate. Mr. Satterthwaite said that at Atlantic City the French had urged us not to sponsor Siam for admission at this time but had indicated that their difficulties with that country would soon be straightened out.⁵³ Any application from Korea would be considered premature at this stage.

The procedure for acting upon applications was then considered. It was noted that there was no necessity that any application be sponsored by any member state. Mr. Raynor asked for clarification of the position as regards the eligibility of Switzerland, and Mr. Sandifer undertook to have OA prepare a specific statement on the difficulties raised by Swiss neutrality.

The discussion then turned to the possibility of opposing the placing of the Albanian question on the daily agenda, The view was expressed that this would be contrary to our broad policy of permitting discussion on all apropriate questions, and it was stated that we could not put through a positive resolution by means of such tactics. Mr. Raynor stated that passage of a Council resolution framed in general terms might encourage states which have been holding back their applications to forward them to the Secretary-General.

49. Respectively, J. Wesley Adams of the Division of International Security Affairs (Office of Special Political Affairs); G. Hay den Raynor, Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of European Affairs; Kenneth P. Landon, Assistant Chief of the Division of Southeast Asian Affairs (Office of Far Eastern Affairs); Mr. Wilson is not precisely identifiable but probably is Leonard S. Wilson of the Division of American Republics Analysis Liaison (Office of American Republic Affairs); Joseph C. Satterthwaite, Assistant Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs); Miss Dorothy Fosdick, Assistant Chief of the Division of International Organization Affairs (Office of Special Political Affairs); David H. Popper, also of the Division of International Organization Affairs.
50. The United Nations Liaison Committee had itself just been organized in the Department of State (see pp. 15 and 21), and had a membership which was representative of each of the geographical offices and the Office of Special Political Affairs. As “working teams” were set up by the Committee on special problems each of the offices, as appropriate, was to name a member or members on the team.
51. Presumably the memorandum of March 22, p. 368.
52. Charles E. Bohlen, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State. The United Nations Liaison Committee had been organized on Mr. Bohlen’s initiative.
53. For documentation on the interest of the United States in the Franco-Siamese dispute, see vol viii, pp. 978 ff.