501.AA/6–2347: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom
2694. Dept would appreciate your discussing promptly exploratory basis with Jebb2 or appropriate officer FonOff question of UN membership problem with objective ascertaining Brit thinking this difficult question. Please telegraph results.
[Page 236]Following for your info and possible use in your discretion your discussion FonOff:
UN still has before it five applications rejected by SC last year: Eire, Portugal, Transjordan, Albania and Mongolian Peoples Republic. Applications have been recd recently from Hungary and Italy. Almost certainly applications will be recd from Finland, Rumania and Bulgaria. Also, possible application may be filed by Austria. Although less certain likewise possible Burma may apply this year. In this connection you should inquire if Brit feel any other application likely this year.
Last year we voted favorably on applications Eire, Portugal and Transjordan and opposed and voted against applications Albania and Outer Mongolia. Also last year we proposed blanket arrangement under which all applications would be accepted. Brit throughout membership discussions were very lukewarm to this blanket arrangement, feeling particularly strong in their opposition to the Albanian application but indicated they would go along with us on this proposal reluctantly. This failed, however, due unwillingness Soviet Union accept it. There is every indication Soviet opposition to membership of Eire and Portugal is strong. This at first based in SC merely on reason that diplomatic relations with Soviet Union not maintained. At General Assembly Soviet Del broadened its reason for opposition by stating that it was based on record of these states in World War 2. U.K., U.S. and other Delegations countered this by stating it was not a Charter reason. Soviets also strongly opposed application of Transjordan but there is slight ground for believing this opposition not quite as firm as in cases of Eire and Portugal.
Recently in SC, Brit and Australian Reps have made statements that this year the rejected applications should be considered prior to consideration of new applications. GA passed resolution calling on SC to re-examine the rejected applications. There appears to be general feeling among SC members shared by UN Secretariat that ex-enemy states can not be admitted until peace treaties become effective. This position probably correct, but we have hoped it would not become formalized in view possible contingency we might want to press for membership of Italy, for example, should there be deliberate and prolonged delays in ratification and hence effectiveness of treaty.
We continue favor admission Eire, Portugal and Transjordan. Considered on individual merits we continue to oppose admission of Albania and Outer Mongolia, feeling more strongly with respect to former than latter.
We strongly favor admission Italy earliest opportunity having in mind importance of effect within Italy. Until recent developments, we [Page 237] had felt same with respect to Hungary.3 We would favor application from Finland.4
As to Rumania, Bulgaria and, presently, Hungary, we have not definitely determined our position. While we appreciate that wording of preambles of treaties may make opposition to satellite applications difficult, we have always placed emphasis on word “enabling” and have believed following effectiveness of treaties we have reserved full freedom then to consider such applications on their merits. We do not feel language of preambles commits us to support Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania any more than language of Potsdam did Soviets with respect Eire and Portugal. Recent serious developments in these countries may be sufficient grounds on which to base opposition. This must be weighed against concept of ultimate universality of membership which we sponsored last year and question whether it is better to have dubious states in rather than out. This is one of points on which we would especially like to have views of FonOff.
Status Austria especially difficult. There seems practically no possibility of treaty being consummated5 prior to membership action this year and also there is no ref to Austria in statement made by participating powers on membership at Potsdam.6 We feel it would be most unfortunate for former enemy states, such as Bulgaria, to be admitted UN prior to a state, victim of aggression, such as Austria. Dept believes Austria should file application and has suggested this to Austrian Govt. If some overall blanket arrangement on admission is worked out, it might be possible to include Austria in such arrangement. In any event, if application on file and considered by Membership Committee, by SC and by GA, opportunities could thus be provided for statements to be made relative to responsibility for delay on Austrian treaty which this Govt or others of like mind might wish to make and which might be helpful to Austria.
Tentatively it seems to us, in view strong position of Sovs with respect to Eire and Portugal, only hope of accomplishing admission of these states, as well as Italy and, if possible, Austria, is to attempt again to work out some blanket arrangement by which a group of states would be admitted, after first opposing on merit the dubious candidates. If that could be done, we might be willing to abstain on [Page 238] applications of Albania and Outer Mongolia. In case of Outer Mongolia, we may, in any event, abstain unless China opposes this year. We feel position of China on Outer Mongolia should be accorded careful consideration.
If blanket approach should be tried, question would arise as to whether to attempt to reach agreement with Soviets for favorable action on all applications, or merely on the group rejected last year, or on some other combination, such as last year’s group plus Italy, Finland and possibly Austria. In this connection you could point out there are five states U.K. and U.S. would undoubtedly support (Eire, Portugal, Transjordan, Italy and Austria), five states Soviets would support (Albania, Outer Mongolia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania) and one state (Finland) or two, if Burma applies, which might receive support of both. This suggests that possibility of success of blanket arrangement covering all of these states may be better than last year when Soviet candidates were in minority. It could also be argued that under circumstances it might be better tactics to remain firm on individual candidates and see if any blanket offers are proffered by Soviets.
In your conversations you should make clear in cases where we have so indicated that our position [is] quite tentative. We intend in near future to engage in consultations with other Govts. For your own info only, we would like to have tentative Brit thinking before beginning other consultations.
Also, please make special point ascertaining when Brit intend [to] introduce Burmese application.7
- H. M. G. Jebb, Counsellor, British Foreign Office.↩
- This refers to the change of regime in Hungary at the end of May, which resulted in a virtual ending of democratic government; for documentation regarding United States interest in this situation, see vol. iv, pp. 260 ff.↩
- Toward the end of March, the United States had in fact communicated informally with the governments of Hungary, Austria, Italy, and Finland, through the U.S. legations in these countries, encouraging them to submit applications for admission to the United Nations “promptly” (telegram 87 to Helsinki, April 2, File No. 501.AA/4–247).↩
- For documentation on this subject, see vol. ii, pp. 577 ff.↩
- Text in Foreign Relations, 1945, The Conference of Berlin (The Potsdam Conference), vol. ii, p. 1509 (section X of the Potsdam Communiqué).↩
- Repeated to the Mission at New York as telegram 276, June 23.↩