501.BC/6–1946: Telegram
The Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
u.s. urgent
[Received June 19—6:43 p.m.]
337. I gave the substance of the following telegram to Mr. Hayden [Raynor] over the telephone today.
I had a further discussion this morning with Sir Alexander Cadogan on the subject of new members. He had received instructions [Page 394] from the Foreign Office as well as comments on their attitude on each of the possible candidates.
The Foreign Office appears to be in general agreement with the procedures we had suggested to Cadogan previously (as reported in my No. 257 of May 29). The Foreign Office had the following comments in regard to possible candidates:
Finland, Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary were covered by the Potsdam declaration and could hardly be considered in the near future.
Italy: They favor Italy’s membership, but would stick to the Potsdam provisions, and did not believe the question would arise this summer.
Austria: They would support Austria and hoped the Foreign Ministers Conference could agree on some form of peace settlement soon, so that Austria’s application could be entertained. Their position was slightly different from ours in that they did not feel the necessity of bringing Italy in before or at the same time as Austria.
Siam: Britain has already agreed with India to support Siam for membership by the peace treaty of Jan. last and they favor Siam becoming a member. They feel, however, that unless the present difficulties are cleared up, the French are sure to veto a Siamese application.
Afghanistan: They will support.
Albania: They have not yet received assurances which would justify appointment of a Minister and will resist until this is done. However, they want to keep in step with the United States.
Eire: They will not take any initiative but will recognize Eire as having the same rights as any other respectable state. They would adopt a favorable attitude in any review and would support if it came to a vote.
Iceland: They will support.
Muscat: They felt it had little chance at this time.
Nepal: Subject to agreement by India, they would support.
Portugal: They will take initiative; will support in any general review and on a vote. They wish to take the initiative with the Portuguese Govt, but would be glad of our support.
Sweden: They will support.
Switzerland: They will support if Switzerland accepts all the obligations under the Charter, which they understand will require a referendum.
Tibet: An application is unlikely. In any case, the Chinese would veto, as they consider it part of China.
Transjordan: They would support as soon as the treaty between Great Britain and Trans Jordan is ratified. Sir Alexander feels there is a question with regard to the elimination of the mandate.
[Page 395]Yemen: An application is unlikely at present. In any case they feel consideration should be deferred.
Soviet Republics: They will resist any Russian demand that additional Soviet Republics be made members.
I pointed out that they had not mentioned Outer Mongolia and advised them of the fact that the Russians had stated that they would not be prepared to consider Afghanistan for membership separately from Albania and Mongolia. Sir Alexander expressed no opinion.
After discussion we agreed that we should make a list of the eligible states with whom we might want to consult with regard to their applications. The procedure for proceeding through diplomatic channels with these discussions should be agreed to either in Washington or London. After such consultations, we would then wish to consult informally with the other permanent members of the Security Council here in New York. We agreed to the following list: Afghanistan, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland. We also considered the possibility of adding Transjordan to this list, but did not do so, pending further consideration of the problem of the treaty, of the mandate, and possible difficulties in regard to Palestine.89
-
For documentation on the status of Palestine in general and Trans-Jordan in particular, see vol. vii, pp. 576 ff., and pp. 794 ff., respectively.
The United States Delegation was informed by Mr. Lawford of the United Kingdom Delegation in June that the Foreign Office intended to suggest a different procedure from that outlined in this discussion. It was the belief of Cadogan and Lawford that the Foreign Office might propose that shortness of time necessitated a speedier procedure and that a first approach should be made to the other permanent members in New York. This information was reported to the Department in telegram 346, June 21, 3:30 p.m., from New York (501.BC/6–2146).
↩