501.AA/6–2647: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
3520. We discussed with Jebb FonOff Deptel 2693 [2694], June 23, and give below FonOff current thought on US membership problems which Jebb says have not been cleared in Inter-Departmental Committee or Cabinet, but which he has every reason to believe represent British Government thought at the moment.
British thought seems to parallel ours except possibly in the case of Albania and Austria. Unless Albania accepts international court jurisdiction Corfu matter and unless she also accepts majority decision Greek Frontier Commission, British will veto her application for [Page 239] membership even as part of blanket arrangement. While agreeing on the desirability of admitting Austria prior to the admission of former enemy states, British feel Austria cannot qualify under charter for membership UN as she is not a free agent.
British would have no objection, however, if Austrian application is presented and even go along with the idea that possibly good would result from statements in membership committee SC and GA when considering application. Present British thinking is, however, that if Austrian application came to a vote, British would abstain on grounds Austria [is] constitutionally unqualified.
British FonOff thought is that on basis concept of ultimate universality of membership and with idea that dubious states would be less nuisance inside than outside UN, British would vote for, or at least not veto, applications of all applicants expected provided there resulted no change in proportional Soviet vote. They are inclined to prefer to fight each individual case out on its merits in the first instance, having their say with the idea that eventually some blanket arrangement may come forth proffered possibly by Soviets. Like the Department and for the same reasons, British emphasize word “enabling” in preambles of peace treaties as reserving full freedom after effectiveness of treaties then to consider each application on its merits.
On this basis they have following feelings in individual cases in addition to those on Albania and Austria outlined above: UK, like US, wants Italy admitted as soon as possible and before enemy states if possible. They feel, however, that question of whether ex-enemy states can be admitted prior to effective date of peace treaty is academic in respect of Italy, as USSR might be expected to veto Italy if her admission were sought prior to that of satellites.
British are inclined to associate Hungary with Rumania and Bulgaria, but to think her not quite so dubious.
British would like to set up Finland as a Soviet balance against Eire and Portugal. If Soviets blackball latter, British would blackball Finland.
Although agreeing that position of China on Outer Mongolia should be given careful consideration, British in first instance would oppose her admission on grounds (1) that independence has not been proved by evidence submitted; and (2) that although she has expressed interest in ECFE and applied for admission in ITU, she has not encouraged diplomatic relations with countries other than the Soviets.
In the early stages at least British in respect of Bulgaria will insist that she accept the Greek Frontier Commission decision and comply with Article 2 of the peace treaty.
Jebb hopes that in committee, procedure will be evolved whereunder all new applications may be considered; otherwise he fears a preponderance of Soviet-dominated applicants.
[Page 240]Jebb laid great stress on the fact that should Burma apply for admission, the Burmese themselves would submit the application. British thought is that Hindustan [Hindu India] will be heir to India [the Indian Empire] in UN and that Pakistan will apply for admission. India office thinks Pakistan may apply1 before the September Assembly but Jebb thinks otherwise, estimating that Burma, Pakistan and possibly Ceylon may apply some time next year.
- India was deemed to be the successor state to British India for purposes of membership in the United Nations (although the Secretary-General of the United Nations did not make a formal judgment on this matter until August 12). However, when Pakistan as a “new” state did make application for admission to the Organization, the Security Council waived the preliminary investigation normally made by its Committee on Admission of New Members.↩