501.AA/6–2647: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom 1
2867. Dept would appreciate your having another conversation with Jebb re UN membership, making following points: (1) Dept greatly appreciates receipt frank indication Brit thinking and hopes for contd exchange info this subject, on which we believe views of Brit and ourselves seem in accord in broad outline. (2) Dept can well understand Brit feeling with respect to Albania and, in fact, shares it to a considerable extent. Nevertheless, we hope Brit would think several times before they would allow this to prevent a blanket arrangement if otherwise there would be assurance of success for such an arrangement. (3) In event Austrian application filed and comes to vote, hope Brit will seriously consider affirmative vote rather than abstention. In this connection we place emphasis on Austria having been a victim of aggression rather than an enemy state and on fact of undue delay in conclusion of peace treaty. Also, Austria has certain definite attributes of statehood, such as (a) its Govt recognized by foreign nations, (b) has exchanged accredited diplomatic representatives with foreign nations, (c) Austrian courts exercise jurisdiction within Austria, (d) Austrian Govt can enact legislation which, other than constitutional laws, is effective unless disapproved by all members of Allied Council, (e) international agreements can be concluded by Austrian Govt unless vetoed by all four occupying powers. Certainly these attributes of statehood possessed by Austria are greater than those possessed by two present members UN, although this argument one [Page 241] which probably can not be used publicly. (4) Inform Jebb that in connection contingency peace treaties may not be ratified prior UN membership action, Dept studying question whether, based on co-belligerent status latter part of war, distinction should be made in favor of Italy as contrasted other former enemy states. Brit views this point would be helpful. (5) Dept does not follow Brit reasoning Finland might be set up as balance against Eire and Portugal. Dept inclined on merit to support Finland’s application and feels Finland may be a state which might be supported by Sovs and U.S. and U.K. This would require careful examination, however, in event Finnish treaty ratified and treaties for countries such as Italy not ratified prior UN membership action. In such event Dept realizes some plan such as Brit suggest might be necessary but it is inclined to feel Sovs will not be as keen for admission Finland as for Balkan satellites. (6) Dept does not understand, and would appreciate your asking Jebb for clarification of point in penultimate paragraph Urtel 3520 that all new applications be considered, otherwise apprehensive of preponderance Sov-sponsored applications.
- The same, mutatis mutandis, to the U.S. Mission at the United Nations.↩