Office of the Historian

501.AA/7–3048: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Jessup)

Washington, July 30, 1948—7 p. m.

496. Re recent inquiries on so-called associate membership,1 following views of Dept may be communicated to interested dels:

1.
Dept does not plan to submit for agenda of coming GA session question of participation in GA proceedings by qualified non-Member States. Our impression is that most of qualified States, such as Italy, will probably not wish status short of full membership.2 We continue to believe that such States deserve full membership. Recent Advisory Opinion of ICJ has clarified and emphasized duty of UN Members [Page 197] in participating in consideration of membership applications by SC and GA, to apply solely the criteria set forth in Art 4. We think, especially in light of this opinion, that problem of participation of qualified States in UN should still be considered in terms of full membership rather than of subordinate status.3
2.
Above considerations apply equally to any suggestions of this nature made by other Govts, such as informal Canadian suggestion re associate membership. In light of these considerations questions as to precise type of participation in GA which could properly be granted non-Members does not seem to require decision at present. We would appreciate knowing whether Canadians intend any proposal this subject.
Marshall
  1. From time to time the impasse in the Security Council regarding admittance of new members gave rise to the view that applicant states whose admission had been prevented by this deadlock should be given some form of participation in the work of the United Nations on an informal basis short of full membership. The United States itself had given a particular stimulus to this idea, when, after the Soviet refusal to recommend Italy on April 10, Ambassador Austin had stated

    “It would appear desirable in these circumstances for attention to be paid to the possibility of devising means whereby such States may be able to have a voice in the General Assembly of the United Nations. The General Assembly of the United Nations is the master of its own house. It could, therefore, choose a method which, at least in part, would do away with the present unfair and unjust disqualification of nations which have every moral right to become Members of the United Nations. Such a formula which would permit the voice of Italy and of certain other States to be heard in the General Assembly of the United Nations, can and should be found.” (United Nations, Official Records of the Security Council, Third Year, No. 54, p. 16)

    The Department of State subsequently modified its views in this respect for reasons indicated in this document.

    ↩
  2. The Department had made a special effort to get an official expression of the Italian Government on this matter, making specific approaches to the Italian Embassy in Washington and to the Italian observer at the United Nations in New York (memorandum of conversation, July 12, 1948 (501.BB/7–1248), and USUN memorandum of conversation, May 25, 1948 (IO Files, document US/S/538), respectively). On July 23 Mr. Luciano Mascia, the Italian observer, informed the United States Mission that he had heard from his government “which quite clearly is opposed to anything short of full membership” (telegram 947 from New York, July 23, 1948, 501.AA/7–2348).↩
  3. Regarding the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, given on May 28, 1948, in response to a General Assembly resolution of November 17, 1947, see Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) Advisory Opinion of May 28th, 1948: I.C.J. Reports 1948. A summary is found in Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947–48, pp. 796 ff.

    In the resolution of November 17, 1947, the General Assembly requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following questions:

    “Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article? In particular, can such a Member, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State?” (Advisory Opinion of May 28th, 1948, p. 58)

    By a vote of nine votes to six, the Court answered both questions in the negative (ibid., p. 65).

    ↩