501.BB/10–1949: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
Delga 112. Following is unofficial translation, distribution by Soviet Delegation, of statement by Vishinsky at press conference, Lake Success, October 18, on Yugoslav candidacy for SC. (For summary, mytel 1269, Oct. 19: for succeeding questions, Delga 111, Oct. 19.1)
“I have invited the correspondents today in connection with a matter which in view of the Soviet Delegation deserves attention. It is the question of the coming election to the SC of three non-permanent members to replace the representatives of the Argentine, Canada and the Ukrainian SSR. One might well ask: what necessity is there for a press conference and for a statement on my part on the eve of this election. Elections are not an infrequent occurrence in the UNO and, therefore, the above question would have been quite justified. I shall proceed immediately to answer that question and the answer, I hope, will make clear the reasons which prompted the Soviet Delegation to make a statement on the matter at today’s press conference. I shall be brief.
Elections of the non-permanent members of the SC are known to be a rather complex and delicate matter, because the UN, in addition to the five permanent members of the SC, consists of 54 other nations and each one of these nations is entitled to lay claim for its representative to be elected to the non-permanent seats on the SC. But there are only six of these non-permanent seats. And this gives rise to all the difficulties. However, the UN can easily overcome all these difficulties provided all the members of the organization show good will and loyalty to the tradition that has been established in accordance with the principle expressed in Article 23 of the charter.
It will be recalled that this Article states that in the election of the non-permanent members of the SC due regard should also be paid to equitable geographical distribution. It will also be recalled that the agreement—gentlemen’s agreement, I would call it—which still exists in this matter has hitherto been strictly complied with and, accordingly, [Page 276] elections to the SC have, in spite of occasional friction, yielded adequate and positive results.
What does the principle of equitable geographical distribution mean? It means exactly this: that all the principal regions of the world should be represented on the SC, and it is in accordance with this that the non-permanent seats in the SC should be distributed. In virtue of this principle and of the tradition established in connection with it the countries forming part of a particular geographical area nominated their candidate for non-permanent seat in the SC, by an agreement among themselves, and all the other delegations accepted this nomination as a fact without entering into a discussion as to why this or that particular country was nominated. In this way the question of the candidacy from a particular geographical region for non-permanent seat on the SC was decided by the countries belonging to the geographical region concerned, and no other rival candidate has hitherto been nominated or elected.
It will be recalled that in 1946 Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, The Netherlands and Poland were chosen as the six non-permanent members of the first SC. Ever since the representative of a state from the same geographical region was invariably chosen to replace a retiring non-permanent member of the SC. Thus at the end of 1946 new members belonging to the same geographical regions were elected in place of the three non-permanent members who had been chosen for a term of one year. Belgium was elected in place of The Netherlands, Syria replaced Egypt and Colombia replaced Mexico. In 1947 when the term of office of Australia, Brazil and Poland expired the Argentine was chosen in succession to Brazil, Canada in succession to Australia and the Ukrainian SSR in succession to Poland.
In this case too, two principles were fully and strictly complied with: the principle of equitable geographical distribution and the principle that the new candidate should be nominated by an agreement among the countries belonging to the geographical region concerned.
That is the way it was during all the preceding elections, during the four previous election campaigns, if I may so call them, and that was proper and lawful. It was lawful because it corresponded to Article 23 of the charter, it was proper because it was just and in accord with the established tradition and what I called the gentleman’s agreement.
There is a desire now to violate all this. A desire to violate both the agreement and the law. A desire to violate them for the sake of certain considerations of political expediency. It has become known that as a result of a behind the scenes bargain between the USA and [Page 277] certain other delegations who are supporting the USA Delegation, on the one hand, and the Yugoslav Delegation, on the other hand, and a group of delegations headed by the USA have the intention of placing the representative of Yugoslavia on the SC. This group of delegations does not want to take into consideration the fact that the countries belonging to the region of EE (Eastern European) have by an agreement among themselves nominated Czechoslovakia and not Yugoslavia. That, apparently, does not conform to the designs and plans of the USG which is prepared to lend its support to Yugoslavia’s dissident actions in everything including the forthcoming election to the SC.
I would like to recall that in 1947 certain delegations again headed by the US attempted to nominate a candidate from the EE countries without taking into consideration the will of those countries. Notwithstanding the fact that those countries nominated the Ukraine as their candidate, the US tried to nominate Czechoslovakia and thus to set the Ukraine and Czechoslovakia at loggerheads. That attempt failed. The Czechoslovakian Delegation protested from the rostrum of the GA against such conduct on the part of the American delegation, protested against attempts to violate the charter and the tradition in accordance with which the elections of the non-permanent members of the SC had invariably been held.
Thus that attempt also failed. The intention now is to repeat the unsuccessful experiment of the past, to make use of the deterioration of relations between the countries of People’s Democracy and Yugoslavia and to profit by this.
The plan is to weaken by this maneuvre the position of the USSR in the SC, while some organs of the press have also mentioned the fact that the purpose of this maneuvre is also to put pressure on the Soviet Government and to wrest from it certain concessions in a different question.
As far as Yugoslavia is concerned, the US, as Newsweek magazine put it in an article of October 17 last have decided to support Yugoslavia for membership instead of Czechoslovakia in the belief that the presence on the council of Yugoslavia ‘the intended victim’ as Newsweek called her, would act as a ‘deterrent to the Russians.’
There is no need to talk of Yugoslavia in this case because the fact of a behind the scenes agreement of the Yugoslav Government with the Government of the US speaks for itself. The ancient Roman legal formula seems to hold true ‘do ut des, facio ut facias—I give in order that you may give, I do in order that you may do.’ And in Russian they say in such cases: one hand washes the other.
[Page 278]If we examine the fact closely, we will see very clearly that the US and certain other supporting states in embarking upon machinations of this kind are not, of course, guided by the interests of strengthening the UN, of strengthening their authority and influence, of strengthening cooperation and mutual understanding. On the contrary such a step can only aggravate differences. It can only bear witness to the fact that the Anglo-American bloc has the intention of moving further along the path of deepening the split and reducing even the minimum degree of agreement in the work of the UN.
Such a step cannot be regarded otherwise than as a challenge flung to the countries of People’s Democracy and to the Soviet Union. It is natural that such a step cannot fail to lead to complications inside the UN and to have painful effects on the state of affairs in the organization. Such machinations undoubtedly undermine the basis of the UN and first of all of the SC. But this is not the first time that an attempt is being made to undermine the basis of the SC to reduce its importance, to hamper its work in order to make it easier subsequently to shift the blame to the impossibility of achieving any positive results in the SC because of the principle of unanimity which is in force there. All this is well known and well understood by everybody. For that reason the long-range aim pursued by the organizers of this new attempt to strike at the SC is not a secret to anybody. One may rest assured that in the long run these machinations will crumble apart and the pernicious aim that is being sought will not yield the expected results.
It should be borne in mind, however, that an election of the non-permanent members carried out with such flagrant violations of the charter and of the established tradition could not be recognized as either lawful or just. That would be the attitude of the Soviet Delegation to this election, unless the majority of the GA rebuffs the sinister underhand designs of the enemies of unity and cooperation in the UN and takes steps to prevent such flagrant violation of the charter. The Soviet Union never has and never will reconcile itself to violations of the charter particularly those violations which undermine the very basis of the UN.”2
- Not printed.↩
- There was much reporting by the members of the Advisory Staff of the U.S. Delegation of conversations with members of other delegations regarding reactions to the Vyshinsky speech. The feeling was widespread that the speech had had no positive effect from the Soviet view. (IO Files, US/A series, October 1949)↩