501.BC/10–2747
Memorandum by the Counselor of the Department of State (Bohlen) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett)
Mr. Lovett: I find here particularly in Washington and even in the Department considerable lack of understanding of the situation with regard to the election in the Security Council and the Ukrainian and Indian deadlock.
The whole criticism that has appeared publicly and even the doubts expressed in the Department appear to be based on a number of complete [Page 163] misconceptions. In New York, I was unfortunately absent when the first deadlock occurred and general distorted versions as to our position and the causes of the deadlock were spread in the papers. The following are the misconceptions:
First, that the United States is blocking the election of the Ukraine. This is completely untrue. The United States has not campaigned against the Ukraine in the slightest degree. The countries, namely, the Latin Americans, on which the United States would have maximum influence are with possibly three or four exceptions voting solidly for the Ukraine. Of the 25 votes received by India, according to our information all but two or three are voting their conviction and preference for India. These votes are composed of the British Commonwealth, 5; the Arab States, 7; the other Mohammedan countries—Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, 3; three Far Eastern countries, China, Siam and the Philippines. Thus, had the United States initially voted for the Ukraine, the Ukraine would not be elected and it is very doubtful that should we switch our vote to the Ukraine that she would be elected.
It might also be pointed out that two of the permanent members of the Security Council, Great Britain and China, are voting against the Ukraine and for India. It is therefore surprising in the circumstances that the United States should be tagged as responsible for the deadlock or working against the Ukraine. The real cause of the deadlock is a deal made behind our backs by the Latin American countries with the Soviet Union—in my opinion an added reason, in addition to those of substance, why the United States should not support the Ukraine whose only chance of election is based on the kind of deal of which we generally disapprove.
The second false assumption is that in voting to admit the Ukraine and White Russia we were confirming their status as “independent states”. This again is not true since at the time of the adoption of the Charter two other nations not enjoying independence, namely, India and the Philippines, were entered as regular members. There is nothing in the Charter which says that membership is the equivalent of a recognition of full independence. Article 23 of the Charter lays down specific qualifications for membership on the Security Council of which the geographic principle is the secondary.1 Language in Article 23 was the subject of much debate in San Francisco and an amendment that membership alone in the United Nations was the sole qualification for membership in the Security Council was overwhelmingly voted down in the Commission.
The Ukraine is by the constitution of the USSR bound by the decisions of the central government, and thus to vote for the Ukraine would be to support one nation having by its own constitution two [Page 164] votes in the Security Council. This is quite a different principle from the practical question that any eastern European state would vote along with Russia. I fully agree that this issue has been magnified far out of its proportion, but I do not think the impression should be allowed to circulate in Washington that this was caused by the United States. It was caused by some twenty nations voting their conviction on India and the majority of the Latin American countries for voting for the Ukraine because of a deal they made with the Soviet Delegation.
I am giving you this spiel simply because I think at least if we are going to be criticized for our position, it should not be on a thoroughly false basis. In fact our position is: (1) we do not question the eligibility of the Ukraine; (2) having voted in the first instance in accordance with the geographic principle for Czechoslovakia, we then voted our preference for India over the Ukraine whose qualifications under Article 23 we doubted.
- Mr. Bohlen attached the text of this article, not printed.↩