Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 1

IO Files: SD/A/C.1/165

Comment Paper Prepared in the Department of State for the United States Delegation to the General Assembly ¹

confidential

[Washington,] September 1, 1948.

Admission of New Members

problem

The following items on the provisional agenda relate to the problem of membership in the United Nations.

14(a), Reports of the Security Council on its proceedings concerning membership.

14(b), Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning the conditions of admission to membership.

14(c), Argentine proposal that the General Assembly admit to membership Italy and every other applicant State that has received seven or more affirmative votes in the Security Council.

The problem of membership, as a whole falls into three parts:

(1) Decision on the admission of any states that may have been recommended by the Security Council;

(2) Action on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice;

(3) Action in respect of rejected applicants.

recommendations (as stated in Position Paper)

1. Favorable Recommendation (if any) from the Security Council

a. Although no favorable recommendations are now expected, the United States should support the admission of any of the following applicants if they are favorably recommended by the Security Council: Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Transjordan, Finland and Ceylon. We should support an application of Israel if submitted and if favorably recommended by the Security Council, subject of course to further instructions from the Department.

2. Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice

a. The United States should make clear its view that the advisory opinion is an authoritative determination of the rights and duties of Members in voting under Article 4 of the Charter.

b. The United States should support or initiate a resolution to bring the advisory opinion to the attention of Member States and of the Security Council with the statement that, in the General Assembly’s view, the Court’s conclusions should be applied in the consideration of membership applications. It would be especially appropriate for Belgium to introduce such a resolution as she initiated the proposal to request the advisory opinion.

3. Action Concerning Rejected Applicants

a. The United States should support or initiate a resolution reaffirming the General Assembly resolutions of 1947 in relation to Transjordan, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Finland and Austria, and requesting a thorough reconsideration by the Security Council of their applications, as well as that of Ceylon, in the light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and of the General Assembly’s views. It may be proposed that such reconsideration take place during the current session.

b. The United States should oppose any proposal to give effect to the theory that the veto right does not now exist in voting on membership applications (Argentine proposal).

c. Unless there is a favorable recommendation by the Security Council that all applicants be admitted, the United States should oppose any resolution calling for the admission of all applicants.

d. The United States should not encourage proposals that, in lieu of membership, any non-member States be granted special privileges to participate in proceedings of the General Assembly, on the ground that most eligible States would not accept this privilege. However if another Member should propose that applicant States referred to in (a) above be granted such privileges, the United States may support referral of the proposal to the Interim Committee for study.

[Here follows discussion of recommendations 1 and 2. The second was discussed in considerably greater detail than the first, particular attention being paid to the dissenting opinion rendered by Judge Krylov (USSR) in the ICJ’s advisory opinion. Discussion then continued on recommendation 3, “Action concerning rejected applicants”.

A. Request for Further Consideration of Qualified Applicants by Security Council

It is recommended that the United States support or initiate a resolution reaffirming the General Assembly resolutions of 1947 supporting Transjordan, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Finland and Austria, and requesting reconsideration of their applications, as well as that of Ceylon in the light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and of the General Assembly’s views. Such reconsideration might be requested to take place during the current Assembly session.

In the first place, a specific recommendation should be made that the Court’s advisory opinion be applied in the reconsideration of these applications. The opinion would, if applied, require at the least, some modification of the grounds given by the Soviet Union for its vetoes of all applications except that of Ceylon. A reasonable application of it, in good faith, should result in the withdrawal of Soviet objections to Italy and Finland. As to Ireland, Portugal and Transjordan, it should result in the abandonment, modification or explanation of one of the grounds given for Soviet opposition—the absence of diplomatic relations. As noted above (section 2), therefore, the Soviet Delegation may argue on the basis of the minority view, with attempts to justify some of the vetoes even under the opinion of the Court. In the cases of Italy and Finland, a repetition of the usual charges as to violation of the Potsdam agreement and the peace treaties by the United States and other Members may be expected as part of this defense. These questions have been argued at length on a number of occasions in the Security Council and General Assembly, where we have given a complete answer to the accusations. As to the Potsdam agreement, we have frequently pointed out that the language is permissive and that it certainly was not designed to override the requirements of Article 4 of the Charter.

It seems sufficient to include in the resolution a recommendation that the application concerned should be reconsidered in the light of the opinion of the Court.

Secondly, a re-affirmation of the General Assembly resolutions relating to Transjordan, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Finland would be desirable. In these resolutions, the General Assembly declared that these States qualify for membership and that the Soviet vetoes were “based on grounds not included in the Charter”. In order to permit no doubt to arise from its silence, now that the Court’s opinion has been handed down, this position should be reaffirmed. These declarations should be understood to mean a criticism either of the grounds mentioned or of the reasonableness or good faith with which these grounds were applied in particular instances by the Soviet Union. They go, therefore, a considerable distance beyond the Court’s opinion, since the latter involved no appraisal of the conduct of any State in any concrete case.

As noted above, Ceylon’s application was rejected in the Security Council through a Soviet veto. The application should, accordingly, be included in the resolution, but no judgment made as to the grounds on which the USSR opposed it.

Any proposal to include in the resolution a recommendation in favor of the admission of the Soviet-sponsored group (Albania, Mongolian Peoples Republic, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria) should be opposed. Unless some conciliatory Soviet move in the membership field should be made, our opposition would presumably be successful. However, we should be prepared to agree to renew Resolution 113 (II)–A, requesting consultation among the great powers as to all rejected applications.

[Here follows discussion of Part B of recommendation 3, the Argentine proposal and proposals for the admission of rejected applicants on an associate membership basis.]

1. The Third Regular Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations was scheduled to convene at Paris on September 21. For documentation regarding: the composition of the U.S. Delegation and its organization and arrangements for conducting business at Paris, see pp. 9 ff.

   In 1947 the Department occasionally submitted a “comment” paper with the regular position paper on a given ‘subject, thereby enabling members of the U.S. Delegation to scrutinize an important matter in greater detail. The relevant position paper in this instance is not printed (IO Files, document SD/C.1/164).