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

IO Files: US/A/M (Chr.)/12

Minutes of the Twelfth Meeting of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly, New York, Hotel Pennsylvania, October 29, 1946, 9 a.m.

New York, October 29, 1946, 9 a.m.

secret

[Here follows list of names of persons (25) present, and discussion of other subjects.]

Admission of New Members to the United Nations

Mr. Sanders⁴⁹ reminded the Delegation that the first two recommendations in the position paper on the Admission of New Members to the United Nations (US/A/C.1/8)⁵⁰ had been approved on October 22. It was desirable to have the Delegation’s approval of the remaining recommendations in order that position could be clear when the matter came up for discussion early in the meeting. Mr. Sanders then read the remaining recommendations on recommendations as follows: (US/A/C.1/8, pp. 1–2).

• “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. (None of these countries could in any case be admitted without prior approval by the Security Council).
• “4. In case the Assembly should vote to consider any of the applications mentioned in (3) above, 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. 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 recommendations.”

Senator Connally said that offhand he could not approve the last sentence of paragraph 5. He did not think it wise that if the Security Council voted properly that the General Assembly should raise objection unless something more vital were involved than appeared to be the case.

Mr. Sanders pointed out that the Soviet objection to the candidates whom they had vetoed had been that the U.S.S.R. had no diplomatic relations with those states. The United Kingdom had taken the position that this was an improper use of the veto under the Charter. It was possible that the United Kingdom would raise the question.

Senator Vandenberg wished that the sentence might be revised to point out that there was no objection to the Security Council’s action as such, but to the Soviet use of the veto. Mr. Dulles pointed out that the fact was that Article 4 of the Charter stated that membership in the United Nations was “open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter, and in the judgment of the Organization, were able and willing to carry out these obligations”. It was mandatory to admit to the United Nations those states that met these tests, Extraneous grounds should not be introduced as a test for membership. Thus the question was whether the veto had been correctly used in the face of Article 4.

Mr. Sandifer said that it would be possible to word the sentence in question more explicitly. Senator Austin suggested that this be done.

Mr. Dulles inquired why the United States had voted against Outer Mongolia. Mr. Taylor replied that adverse vote had been cast since one government which we thought was more qualified than Outer Mongolia had been opposed by the Soviet Union, and because so little is known about that country. Chiefly, he said it was because so little was known about Outer Mongolia which only had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Since there was no case made for it, it could not be certain Outer Mongolia could carry out its obligations.

Mr. Foote⁵¹ pointed out that the United States said it would be willing to waive its doubts in the interests of the principle of universality provided objection was not raised to other candidates. However, once the Soviet veto had been exercised, the United States had not felt it could vote for Outer Mongolia.

Senator Connally inquired whether he was correct in believing that the Russians gave as their only reason the lack of diplomatic relations. He was assured that this was the case.

Senator Austin polled the Delegation on accepting the proposition that whenever pertinent our objection to the wisdom of the Soviet vetoes on the basis the applicant states had no diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union should be expressed. The Delegation unanimously approved this amendment to recommendation 5, (US/A/C.1/8, p. 2).

In discussing paragraph 6 (US/A/C.1/8, p. 2) of the recommendations on the Australian proposal on membership, Senator Connally observed that Australia could not maintain this position because it was clearly against the Charter. Mr. Sandifer remarked that the Australians had a novel interpretation of the Charter, that both the initiative and the final action in regard to membership was in the hands of the General Assembly. Senator Vandenberg remarked that the Australians wanted to amend the Charter. Senator Connally agreed that it was clear that the Charter required the Security Council to act first. Mr. Raynor remarked that Australia had no support for this view, but had a blind spot on the Assembly’s authority.

Senator Austin stated that certainly the United States Delegation would adhere to the letter and spirit of Article 4 of the Charter. Senator Connally said that he would prefer that recommendation 6 should state that “We do not object to” rather than “We should favor” full discussions. There was no objection to this change, and with it the recommendation was approved.

[Here follows discussion of another subject.]

49. William Sanders, Associate Chief of the Division of International Organization Affairs, and at this time serving as an officer-adviser on the staff of the United States Delegation as a specialist in First Committee affairs.
50. See footnote 46, p. 443.
51. Wilder Foote, Director of Information, United States Delegation to the United Nations.