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

IO Files: SD/A/C.1/26

Department of State Position Paper⁴⁴

secret

[Washington,] October 4, 1946.

Position of the United States Concerning the Recommendations of the Security Council on the Admission of New Members to the United Nations

the problem

Of the nine applications for membership thus far presented to the Organization, three have been acted upon favorably by the Security Council and transmitted with its recommendation to the Assembly for final action. These three applicant States are Afghanistan, Iceland and Sweden. One applicant (Siam) requested postponement of consideration of its application, two applications (Albania and the People’s Republic of Outer Mongolia) did not receive seven affirmative votes in the Council, and three applications (Eire, Portugal and Trans Jordan) were vetoed by the Soviet Union.

The General Assembly, which has the final decision on the admission of new members will in any case have its first occasion not only to act on applications but also to develop general policies and express its views on the subject of membership as a whole. General dissatisfaction over the results of the action of the Security Council on membership applications may be reflected in proposals in the Assembly.

Under present procedure, each membership application is referred by the Secretary-General to the Security Council for consideration. The Council, if it approves the application, makes a favorable recommendation to the General Assembly, which decides finally whether or not to admit the applicant to membership. The Australian Government may propose a change of procedure whereby membership applications will be submitted first to the Assembly, referred by it to the Council for a recommendation, and acted upon finally by the Assembly upon receipt of the Council’s recommendation. It is not clear whether or not this proposal is designed to provide a means of eliminating the possibility of a veto of membership applications in the Security Council.

recommendations

1. We should support and vote favorably on the applications of Afghanistan, Iceland and Sweden.

2. We favor thorough study and debate, looking toward the adoption of suitable resolutions by the General Assembly on the membership problem as a whole, including the criteria for admission, and the policies and procedures of the Organization with respect to membership.

3. We see no particular value in Assembly consideration at this time of the applications rejected by the Security Council—those of Albania, the Mongolian People’s Republic, Transjordan, Eire and Portugal. We should express this point of view but should also state that we do not oppose such consideration.

4. In case the Assembly should vote to consider any of the above mentioned applications, any U.S. statements on those applications would be made in the light of the circumstances then existing and of our previous proposals in the Council.

5. Any proposals involving questions concerning constitutional aspects of the Soviet veto of certain applications on grounds not found in the Charter should be considered primarily in connection with the other proposals on the general problem of the veto.⁴⁵ However, our objections to the wisdom of these Soviet vetoes may be expressed wherever pertinent during consideration of membership questions.

6. We should favor full discussion of, but should not support, an Australian proposal, if presented, for adoption of a fixed procedure whereby all membership applications should be considered first by the Assembly, referred by it to the Security Council for a recommendation, and acted upon finally by the Assembly after receipt of the recommendation.⁴⁶

discussion

1. Position Taken by U.S. Toward Membership Problem Thus Far.

(a) General

Article 4 of the Charter provides:

• “1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
• “2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

This Government has strongly espoused the principle that the United Nations must, in order to be fully effective, attain as broad and representative a membership as possible in the shortest possible time. It has taken a series of steps to further this end.

It proposed a resolution, which was adopted by the Security Council on May 17, 1946 providing in substance that all applications received up to July 15 (a date subsequently postponed three weeks) be considered together by a Committee of the Security Council and that the Council itself act upon all these applications in time to make recommendations thereon to the General Assembly at this session. In appropriate cases, the Department informed non-member governments of its willingness to support applications for membership submitted by them.

In the proceedings of the Membership Committee of the Security Council it expressed its support for Afghanistan, Ireland, Portugal, Iceland, Siam and Sweden. It reserved its position with respect to Transjordan and, while declaring that it had an open mind toward the applications of Albania and the Mongolian People’s Republic, expressed doubts concerning the qualifications of those two applicants for membership.

In the meeting of the Security Council on August 27 [28], the U.S. Representative made a strong declaration in favor of universality of membership and proposed a resolution providing for a favorable recommendation upon all applicants but Siam, which had requested that consideration of its application be postponed. In proposing this resolution, the American representative stated that while this Government continued to have misgivings concerning the qualifications of Albania and Outer Mongolia it was prepared, in the interest of helping the Organization to make as rapid strides as possible toward universality of membership, and applying the terms of the Charter in a broad and fairminded way, to resolve its questions with regard to some applicants in case the other members of the Council would join in the proposed action. It was made clear that in case our proposals should not be accepted the position of the U.S. toward each application was reserved. The resolution was opposed by the Soviet Union and Australia, and in the voting upon individual applications which ensued, only the applications of Afghanistan, Iceland, and Sweden were unopposed. Albania received five votes and the Mongolian People’s Republic six, these applications being thus rejected by lack of the necessary seven votes. The Soviet Union vetoed the applications of Trans Jordan, Eire, and Portugal on the expressed ground that it had no diplomatic relations with these applicants. This ground is, of course, not found in Article 4 of the Charter and is hence objectionable as a matter of policy if not contrary to the Charter.

Poland joined the Soviet Union in voting against Transjordan and Portugal. Australia abstained from all votes on individual applications.

As a result of these votes, the Security Council made the following recommendation to the General Assembly:

The Security Council, having received and considered the report submitted by the Committee on the Admission of New Members regarding applications for membership in the United Nations presented by Albania, Mongolian People’s Republic, Afghanistan, Transjordan, Ireland, Portugal, Iceland, Siam and Sweden.

Having considered in the course of its debate each one of the above mentioned applications, and having taken due notice of the statements of opinion of the members of the Security Council in regard to those applications, recommends to the General Assembly that it admit to> membership in the United Nations the following applicants:

• Afghanistan
• Iceland
• Sweden

A special report on the admission of new members is being made to the Assembly by the Security Council. The first part of this report contains the recommendations; the second summarizes the Council’s proceedings on the subject.

(b) U.S. Position Toward Individual Applications Recommended by the Security Council.

Afghanistan

In response to an inquiry by the Afghan Government the Department stated in May that in its opinion Afghanistan fulfilled the qualifications for membership and that this Government intended to lend its wholehearted support to Afghanistan’s application. Similar inquires of the British, French, Indian, Chinese and Soviet governments elicited favorable responses except that the Soviet Union stated that Afghanistan’s application could be considered only in connection with those of Albania and Outer Mongolia. The Afghan Government applied by telegram dated July 2, 1946, declaring that it was prepared to accept the obligations contained in the Charter.

It is our view that Afghanistan is fully qualified for membership. Its status as a state is unchallenged, it conducts its own foreign affairs, maintains normal diplomatic relations with about a dozen states, and has succeeded in maintaining its independence. It observed a scrupulous neutrality during the war. It is believed that membership in the United Nations would serve to minimize the possibility of difficulty with Afghanistan’s neighbors and of threats to Afghanistan’s independence.

During the proceedings of the Security Council’s Membership Committee and of the Security Council itself no objection to Afghanistan’s admission was expressed by any Government. The U. S. stated its support for Afghanistan’s application.

Iceland

Iceland’s contribution to the success of the United Nations in the struggle for the North Atlantic sea lanes gave it from the start a close relationship to the United Nations. This relationship was recognized in the invitations extended to Iceland, as a nation associated with the United Nations, to participate in such conferences as those pertaining to the Food and Agricultural Organization, UNRRA, and Bretton Woods. Upon the inquiry of the Icelandic Government in September 1945 this Government stated that it would warmly support Iceland’s admission. In July 1946 this Government informed the Icelandic Government that any application for membership should be submitted very shortly in order to secure membership this year, and inquired concerning Iceland’s intentions in this respect. The Icelandic Government convoked the Parliament which on July 29 adopted a resolution authorizing an application for membership. This application was filed with the Secretary-General on August 2.

In the consideration of the resolution by the Parliament, the question of major interest concerned the scope and nature of the obligations, under Article 43 of the Charter, to grant bases or other assistance to the forces of the United Nations. Considerable opposition was expressed to the grant of bases. Although Iceland’s application was made without reservations or conditions, intimations were given to several governments, including that of the United States, of opposition to the grant of the use of Icelandic territory for military purposes.

This Government has consistently taken the position that Iceland, as an independent and peace-loving state, is fully qualified for membership and that it is able to make a useful contribution to the United Nations.

The United States supported Iceland’s application strongly in the Security Council.

Questions.

Little doubt could exist concerning Sweden’s qualifications for admission to membership. In July, the United States and British Governments indicated their willingness to support Sweden’s application. The Swedish Government then inquired concerning the attitudes of the other permanent members of the Council and received indications of support although the Soviet Union indicated that its attitude toward Sweden would depend upon the attitudes of other Governments toward Soviet candidates for admission. The Swedish Government made application on August 9. No question was raised in the Membership Committee or in the Council concerning its qualifications.

This Government is convinced that as a member of the United Nations Sweden will be able to make an outstanding contribution.

2. Support for Declaration of Policies by Assembly on Membership Questions.

This Government is of opinion that since the General Assembly has the final decision on the admission of new members, it should play as influential a role as possible in determining the criteria for admission and the general policies of the Organization toward the matter. Consideration of the subject at the first part of the first session, at London, was discouraged in order to concentrate on the task of setting up the Organization. The Assembly has, accordingly, not yet dealt with membership questions. It is believed that we should encourage and support any reasonable moves to have the General Assembly give study to the subject of membership and, to the fullest possible extent, elaborate its views and policies with respect to the criteria for admission, to the basic policies of the Organization toward new members, and to the procedures of the Organization for giving effect to those policies.

Such moves may be given impetus by general dissatisfaction with the action of the Security Council on the nine membership applications received thus far. In particular, the action of the Soviet delegate in vetoing the applications of Eire, Portugal and Transjordan in the Security Council on the non-Charter ground that it had no diplomatic relations with those countries was sharply criticized by the Representatives of Australia and other Governments and it is not unlikely that an issue will be made of this matter in the Assembly. The Australian delegate stated in the Council on August 29 that

“our Delegation feels sure that if it should be necessary for this Council to report to the General Assembly that Membership in the United Nations has been denied to an applicant State for some reason which lies entirely outside the Charter of the United Nations, then that is a matter to which the General Assembly must give the very closest and the most careful consideration.”

No concrete proposals designed to remedy the effect of the proceedings in the Security Council have yet been made. However, it would not be surprising if the Assembly were asked to consider and declare its views on the rejected applications with a view toward adoption of a resolution requesting reconsideration of certain applications by the Council. Again, it might be proposed that the Assembly state its views as to the criteria which under the Charter should be applied in the consideration of membership applications. In general, it seems likely that the tendency of the Assembly will be to support the basic objectives for which this Government has contended in the Security Council, namely, the admission of all qualified States and the exclusion of entities that clearly are not qualified. However, since further progress toward our objective of securing the admission of all qualified States depends upon the attitude of the powers on the Council, we have no specific proposals to make in the Assembly. We wish to leave the initiative in the Assembly to other Governments, but to lend general support to a vigorous exercise by the Assembly of its functions in relating to the membership question. We should naturally favor such elaboration of the criteria for membership as may make more difficult the admission of applicants that lack the qualities of statehood.

3. Assembly Consideration of Applications Rejected by the Security Council.

It might be proposed that the Assembly consider the applications rejected by the Security Council—those of Albania, Mongolian People’s Republic, Transjordan, Eire and Portugal—with a view toward an Assembly request that the Security Council reconsider its action in any of these cases. In principle, there would appear to be no objection to this, assuming that such consideration would be agreeable to the applicant States. The status of the applications and the desires of the applicants since the action of the Security Council are not clear. However, it would seem doubtful whether any such request from the Assembly would be heeded by the Council unless any current Soviet candidates were mentioned favorably in the request. Thus if, for example, the Assembly should after considering the applications adopt a resolution stating that Eire, Portugal, and Transjordan appeared to have the qualifications for membership but that Albania and the Mongolian People’s Republic were doubtful and requesting Council action in accordance with these views, the Soviet Union could hardly be expected to agree. It would be preferable for the Assembly not to embark on any such action unless there were reasonable prospect of securing a vote in the Security Council in accordance with its objective.

4. U. S. Position on Rejected Applications.

The decision as to the position which this Government might make with regard to individual applications in the event that the Assembly should vote to consider them, would need to be postponed until all the circumstances became clearer.

In the Security Council, the U.S. proposed the admission of all applicants in order to secure approval of the maximum number of qualified members. In so doing, it stated clearly that it had certain doubts about the qualifications of Albania and the Mongolian People’s Republic and that, in case the broad proposal were rejected, it reserved its position with regard to individual applications. When the proposal was rejected by the Soviet Union, the U.S. representative voted in favor of Eire, Portugal and Transjordan and voted against Albania and the Mongolian People’s Republic.

Proposals looking toward universality of membership may be presented and strongly supported in the Assembly. If they are, this Government can refer to its Council proposal and state its support for the general principle. However, there would appear to be no reason why any doubts expressed by the United States in the Council concerning the qualifications of any applicant should not be repeated if still deemed valid at the time.

The Membership Book contains detailed background and policy data on each of the States that applied.⁴⁷

5. Soviet Veto of Membership Applications.

Remarks of the Australian and Netherlands representatives in the Council concerning the Soviet veto of membership applications suggest that proposals relating specifically to this use of the veto might be made. Thus, the Netherlands representative mentioned the possibility of a request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the subject. However, two proposed resolutions concerning the veto are already on the provisional agenda and their consideration should involve study of the veto problem as a whole by Committee I. It is believed that any proposals raising constitutional questions concerning the veto could be considered most usefully as part of this broader study. This does not mean that we should not express, in connection with discussions of the membership question, our general opposition to the Soviet veto. However, it would not be desirable, in present membership discussions, to take a definite position on the legal aspects of these vetoes.

6. Australian Views Concerning Membership Procedure.

The Australian Government has on various occasions expressed its adherence to a novel interpretation of Article 4 of the Charter. According to this interpretation, membership applications should appropriately be submitted first to the General Assembly for a decision as to whether or not they should be “entertained”, thereupon referred to the Security Council for its recommendation and then returned to the Assembly for final action. The Australian Government made a reservation in the Membership Committee of the Security Council and in the Security Council itself that the fact that an application for membership had or had not been considered by the Committee (and presumably by the Council) should not exclude such application from consideration by the General Assembly. It abstained from all votes on the individual applications in the Council. It has given other indications that it will present these views, possibly in the form of a concrete proposal, to the coming Assembly. It is not yet clear where, if at all, the Australian proposal will be presented. It has not been placed on the agenda. Since it relates to procedure, it may possibly be offered to the subcommittee of Committee VI appointed to consider revisions of the Assembly’s provisional rules of procedure. In any case it seems likely to be discussed generally in connection with membership questions.

Since the proposal has not been submitted in concrete form, the following discussion is necessarily general and tentative in character. It has not been made clear how this procedure is thought to strengthen the role of the Assembly in the membership question. The procedure might, however, conceivably be proposed as a method of circumventing the veto on membership applications. Such use would depend on the theory that the Council’s “recommendation” might be either favorable or adverse and that the Assembly could accept or reject either type of “recommendation”. Thus, the Assembly might consider applications in the first instance, expressly request recommendations (either favorable or adverse) from the Security Council on each application, and finally accept or reject such recommendations if and when received, voting to admit such applicants as it might consider qualified.

However, the records of the preparatory work which led to the adoption of Article 4 of the Charter indicate clearly that it was the design of the framers of the provision that the Assembly should not be able to admit an applicant State to membership without favorable action by the Security Council. Moreover, when the Australian representative in the Security Council presented the Australian plan as an argument for postponement of adoption of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure on membership, the Chinese, Mexican, United Kingdom and Soviet representatives clearly stated their understanding that the Assembly can admit an applicant to membership only if favorable action on the application by the Council also takes place. In addition it should be noted that the Security Council could, simply by refusing to make a negative recommendation on an application of which it did not approve, remove every possibility of final Assembly action on the application. It does not appear, therefore, that the adoption of the procedure outlined by Australia would provide a means of eliminating the veto of membership applications.

The proposal may, however, be designed not to remove the veto from the membership question but simply to vest more control over the matter in the Assembly by providing that the Assembly take both the initial and the final steps in handling an application. This might be thought to afford some insurance against “horse trades” in the Security Council the results of which the Assembly could only accept or reject. It may be thought, further, that such a procedure would facilitate consideration of applications on their merits. While, however, there is nothing to restrain the Assembly from considering membership applications at any stage, a fixed procedure requiring double consideration of each application by the Assembly would be cumbersome and time-consuming, and there would be no assurance that it would bring substantial improvement.

The Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Assembly and of the Council, adopted by the respective bodies, both clearly reflect the intention that the Assembly will ordinarily act to admit an applicant only after a recommendation has been received from the Security Council. When the Council’s draft rules of procedure drawn up by the Committee of Experts were considered by the Council, the Australian representative proposed postponement of their adoption on the ground that applications should be considered first by the Assembly. His proposal was rejected 10–1, after various representatives had stated their preference for the draft rules.⁴⁸

It would appear that adequate grounds for U.S. support for the Australian proposal have not been shown.

44. Prepared for the use of the United States Delegation to the Second Part of the First Session of the General Assembly; for documentation regarding the composition and organization of the Delegation, and arrangements effected in preparation for the General Assembly session, see pp. 40 ff. There had been a second postponement of the date for the meeting of the General Assembly, from September 23 to October 23.
45. See documentation concerning the question of the voting procedure of the Security Council under Article 27 of the Charter, pp. 251 ff.
46. The substance of this paper was adopted to constitute virtually the whole of a position paper drafted by the United States Delegation to the General Assembly and entitled “Admission of New Members to the United Nations”, October 28, not printed (IO Files, document US/A/C.1/8). For certain changes made, to bring the document up to date, and to reflect the thinking of the Delegation as expressed in a Delegation meeting on October 29, see minutes of the October 29 meeting, infra.
47. This section constitutes Part II of the Membership Book, found in the IO Files.
48. See bracketed note, p. 386.