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

IO Files: US(P)/A/M/(Chr)/2

Minutes of the Second Meeting of the United States Delegation, Paris, Hotel d’Iéna, September 22, 1948, 9:15 a. m.

Paris, September 22, 1948, 9:15 a.m.

secret

[Here follow list of persons (30) present and discussion of the Delegation’s press policy.]

2. Review of Slates Situation (Mr. Rusk)

After noting the generally successful (from the standpoint of the United States) results of the elections on September 21, Mr. Rusk explained that the seven vice presidents of the Assembly remained to be elected. Normally the Five Major Powers were elected as a matter of course, and the United States had already committed itself to vote for Romulo (Philippine Republic) and Padilla Nervo (Mexico) for the two remaining vice-presidencies. Since the Assembly had failed to elect an Eastern European chairman of Committee VI, if the election of vice-presidents followed the United States slate above, the USSR alone would have a seat on the General Committee. It was noted that the Soviet group claimed three seats on the General Committee and that in the past it has not had fewer than two. Mr. Rusk said that Malik (USSR) had been told that we had supported the Czech candidate for the chairmanship of Committee VI. He explained further that the motion by Spaak for adjournment of the session yesterday was based on the hope of working out further representation for the Eastern European group on the General Committee. M. Spaak planned to approach Padilla Nervo and ask him to become a candidate for vice-chairman of Committee I, a post in which he would have considerable important work to do since Spaak, chairman, will not be able to remain in Paris continuously. Mr. Rusk said the present recommendation of the staff was to the effect that we should not break our commitments to vote for Romulo and Padilla Nervo but should let Spaak handle the situation. If he were unsuccessful, then we would simply vote in accordance with our commitments.

Mr. Dulles said he had a telephone call from Denver in which concern has been expressed regarding the results of the elections yesterday. He thought the present situation might hold serious psychological danger and be subject to unfortunate interpretations. Mr. Thorp noted that a similar situation had come up in ECOSOC at its last session when the Eastern European group lost some seats in the elections for the functional commissions and the Soviet representative then immediately charged the United States with lobbying against the Eastern European states when, in fact, the United State had done no lobbying at all; the Delegation should accordingly be prepared to face such a charge at the Assembly if the Eastern European candidate were defeated. Mr. Jessup said that he had told Malik (USSR) that we had favored the Eastern European candidate for Committee VI; that we had previously made commitments to two candidates for vice-presidencies in the expectation that an Eastern European state would be elected a committee chairman; and that it would be necessary to review the whole situation during the postponement. Mr. McKeever suggested that it might be possible to forestall any attack on the United States by simply telling the press that we had voted for the Czech candidate for Chairman of Committee VI and also who our candidates for vice-presidents are.

Mr. Rusk suggested that it might be appropriate for the United States to indicate to Padilla Nervo its sympathy with Spaak’s pro-proposal that he accept the vice chairmanship of Committee I and withdraw his candidacy for vice president. Mr. Raynor also favored an approach by the United States to Padilla Nervo along this line. Mr. Rusk noted that of course, if the votes on the first ballot were scattered, the United States could consider dropping Romulo from its slate.

Ambassador Austin explained that he had told Katz-Suchy (Poland) that we had voted for the Czech candidate for chairman of Committee VI, and that the Delegation had commitments respecting the vice presidences which would have to be reviewed in the light of developments after the adjournment. The Secretary agreed that it would be appropriate to tell the press and other delegations that we had supported a Czech for Committee VI but questioned whether anything should be said regarding our candidates for vice-presidents.

Mr. Thorp proposed that on the first ballot for vice president the United States vote not for itself, since its election is certain in any case, but for an Eastern European candidate. This would have the effect of ensuring enough votes for an Eastern European candidate to guarantee its inclusion on the next ballot, at which time the Delegation should review the situation. Mr. Cohen agreed with this suggestion.

Mr. Dulles asked what limited the number of vice presidents to seven and wondered whether there was anything worth exploring, perhaps looking toward an increase in the number of vice presidents. It was explained that the number of vice presidents was established in the Assembly rules of procedure. Mr. Dulles suggested that if the Eastern European candidate loses in the election of vice presidents, the United States might move an amendment to the rules of procedure to increase the number of vice presidents. He believed that the United States might simply ask for a suspension of the rules of procedure to provide for the election of a third vice president from Eastern Europe. It was noted that the rules of procedure could be amended by a majority decision. Mr. Austin pointed out that as a parlimentary body the Assembly controlled its own procedure and could always act by unanimous consent; he therefore suggested that the rules might be suspended and the third vice president elected by unanimous consent. Mr. Cohen agreed that, if there were no objection, the Assembly could proceed in this manner by a suspension of the rules of procedure. Mr. Rusk noted that the rules of procedure did not mention action by unanimous consent.

Returning to Mr. McKeever’s suggestion, Dr. Corrigan stated that he believed there would be unfortunate reactions among the Latin American Delegations if we were to announce publicly that we had not supported Alfaro (Panama) for chairman of Committee VI. He did not think enough was to be gained by the contrary strategy of appeasing the Eastern Europeans by making public our support for the Czech candidate to balance the danger to Latin American good will. Mr. Rusk, however, noted it was more dangerous not to have it known that we actually voted for an Eastern European state for this post. Mr. McKeever asked whether he could tell the press, when questioned, exactly how the United States had voted for each post and it was agreed that he should give such information to the press. The Secretary stated the Delegation’s agreement that the press should be informed of our support for the Czech candidate for Committee VI but that no information be given out regarding our preferred candidates for vice presidents until further information was available.

Mr. Jessup suggested that we might start pushing the idea that the Interim Committee should study the whole question of voting procedures in the Assembly in order to work out the means by which difficulties, such as the present one, could be avoided in the future. Such an approach might soothe feelings. Mr. Rusk agreed that this might be useful but noted that it probably should not be made as a statement to the press, even without attribution, suggesting that members of the Delegation might simply discuss the idea generally, and let it leak out thus informally. Mr. McKeever noted that it would be important to show that the same problem had arisen in other organs of the United Nations. Mr. Jessup pointed out that the real drawback was that the Soviet group was boycotting the Interim Committee.

Mr. Rusk noted the Delegation’s agreement to support Spaak’s approach to Padilla Nervo. A final decision would then be taken in the light of discussions of delegates after further conversations with Mr. Spaak just as the Assembly convened.¹

[Here follows discussion of other items on the Delegation’s agenda.]

1. For the proceedings of the General Assembly on Sept. 22 regarding the election of the vice-president, see GA (III/1), Plenary, pp. 25–26.