501.AD/12–646

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, by the Acting Secretary of State

Subject: Permanent Site for the United Nations

In connection with a telephone conversation which I had with Senator Austin this morning and which is reported in a separate memorandum,62 I telephoned him as follows:

I said that we had talked over in Cabinet meeting the question of what stand he should take on the United Nations headquarters site. The President and the Cabinet agreed that they would like to have him do everything that he could not to take a position between the East and the West, as they believed that it would be very much easier to get Congressional approval of whichever decision is made if we can maintain to the end a position of neutrality. It was also suggested that Senator Austin might make a speech which would point out why we wish our guests to make up their minds, that we think both of these sites are excellent and that we will be happy with either one and will do everything we can to try to carry out the decision. Senator Austin might further say that we think people should not yield in the heat of debate to the temptation to make extreme statements and that everyone should try to get together and go along with whatever decision is voted.

The President said that he did not think the Senator’s vote ought in any way to be influenced by the threats of the Russians.

[Page 113]

The President’s advice to Senator Austin was that, if he absolutely had to make a public announcement of his decision, he thought that we should be governed by the attitude of those nations which are most important to the success of the United Nations. He thought that if these nations were taken reluctantly and grudgingly to a site which they did not favor, the result would be unhappy. The President thought that this method of arriving at a decision would probably lead to Philadelphia, as he thought that city was the one favored by the most important countries.

Senator Austin agreed that if he followed this method Philadelphia would be the site he must favor. He said that France was the only one of the European countries which favored San Francisco. China and practically all the Latin American countries and the countries of the Pacific are in favor of San Francisco. New Zealand is an exception to this last statement. Their view in favor of Philadelphia is based on their belief that there is a moral obligation to stay on the East Coast, which the United States [Nations?] assumed when the decision to have the headquarters in the United States was made.

Senator Austin expressed himself as quite certain that he could not put off any longer the announcement of his decision for one site or the other. He said that if he made the announcement he intended to justify his position by a strong statement of the reasons why he was doing so.63

  1. In a memorandum on the earlier conversation Mr. Acheson reported that Senator Austin “referred to the instructions from the President previously transmitted to him by me that on the question of the headquarters site he should not urge any particular site over another but should follow the trend of the debate and vote with the majority. He said that he was now in a difficult position because as the debate had proceeded [the Permanent Headquarters Committee began its consideration of the Sub-Committee’s report on December 4] and the views of the other members of the Committee were expressed it appeared there was no definite trend toward either site and the vote would probably be close to a tie. He would therefore like to know before three o’clock this afternoon what the President wished him to do in this situation, which he pointed out was further complicated by the Russian statement in opposition to San Francisco”. (Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, December 6, 501.AD/12–646). The position of the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR on this subject may be traced in the official records of the General Committee, the Permanent Headquarters Committee and the General Assembly. These states seemed to be seriously interested in shifting the temporary and/or permanent headquarters of the Organization to Europe, one or the other having made specific proposals or strong statements to such effect (United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, First Session, Second Part, General Committee, p. 84 and United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, First Session, Second Part, Plenary Meetings [hereafter referred to as GA(I/2), Plenary], pp. 945 and 946.
  2. For Senator Austin’s statement to the Permanent Headquarters Committee on December 6, favoring an East Coast site, see GA(I/2), Headquarters Committee, pp. 135–137. In part it said:

    “In view of the pressure brought from all quarters, including other delegations and some officials of the United Nations … the time had come when a statement of the United States’ position could no longer be postponed. Such a statement was particularly needed on account of the incorrect impression which had become current after the United States declaration that the highly valuable Presidio site could be made available if it was desired as the headquarters of the Organization.

    “The representative of the United States of America wished to announce that this Government was not in favour of placing the headquarters on the Pacific coast; it was in favour of situating it on or near the country’s Atlantic seaboard … that selection … had been made solely on the basis of the best interests of the United Nations. His Government had come to the conclusion that the headquarters of the Organization should not be far removed from Europe, which would be the centre of most of the activities of the Organization. In addition, the capital of the United Nations should be easily accessible from the capitals of most of the Member States. He hoped that the Secretary-General would explain to the Committee how the selection of a west coast site would involve additional burdens of transportation and communication. … the United States would accept the decision of the majority without rancour.” (GA(I/2), Headquarters Committee, pp. 136 and 137)

    For the continuing debate on the Report of the Sub-Committee on December 9, see ibid., pp. 141–148. For a resolution offered on that date by the United States that “consideration of the question of which particular site in the United States shall be the permanent headquarters of the United Nations be postponed to the next annual session of the General Assembly. …”, see ibid., p. 206, annex 8.