310.2/10–451: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
177. Re Italian Membership: Dept believes US, UK and France shld pursue question Italian membership with view to determining what course most likely achieve objective Italian admission or, failing this, demonstrate clearly sincerity our intentions this matter. Pls discuss following Dept views with UK and Fr Dels, and, in your discretion with Canadians.
1. Dept believes best course wld be SC reconsideration of Italy’s application as special case. This plan has been under serious consideration in Dept and was recently proposed by UK (urtel 380, Sep 26). While reconsideration Italy’s application might cause resentment from other applicants we also consider qualified, separate action in case of Italy can be justified to them in view Italy’s special responsibilities re operation trusteeship system which it cannot discharge effectively without full rights including voting in TC and GA. We wld hope UK cld be persuaded not to raise application of Ceylon and others until after Italian application acted upon. Further, although consultations with USSR re Italian application might be unsuccessful and have disadvantage of tipping our own hand in advance, we see no objection if one of Govts principally interested in Ital admission shld undertake such consultations as part effort achieve objective.
We wld be prepared support or sponsor SC reconsideration Italy’s application and make strongest possible effort for favorable recommendation. [Page 352] In our view there is outside chance USSR might agree to vote for Italy. USSR wld, however, probably counter with omnibus proposal under which, in return for admission of Italy and possibly other non-Cominform applicants, we wld be required vote for one or more Cominform applicants. We cld not accept such a proposal.
Before deciding definitely in favor reconsideration Italy’s application, we wld wish consult with Italy re this matter and question of timing. Re timing, our tentative view is SC reconsideration after GA convenes in Paris wld make it more difficult for USSR to veto and wld have more effective results in Italy.
2. The suggestion contained in Ital Aide-Mémoire that GA disregard veto and take action to admit Italy presents basic Charter difficulties. First, it wld be inconsistent with Para 2 of Art 4 of Charter as interpreted by ICJ in advisory opinion of Mar 3, 1950. In this opinion, ICJ concluded that under Charter, GA cannot admit a state to membership when SC had made no recommendation either because of failure of candidate to obtain required majority or because of veto of permanent member. In same opinion ICJ noted that “nowhere has the GA recd the power to change, to the point of reversing, the meaning of a vote of the SC”. Second, even though Sov vetoes have not been on Charter grounds and are not in accordance with ICJ advisory opinion of May 28, 1948, it does not follow, as contended in Ital Aide-Mémoire, that these vetoes are null and void or that GA is in position to take action implying this.
3. We do not see merit in Belaunde suggestion (urtel 359, Sep 20) that ICJ might be requested give opinion on an applicant’s qualifications. Since advisory opinion not binding, USSR cld still veto application. Further, we have serious doubts whether ICJ wld consider itself competent to determine whether an applicant is qualified in view Court’s statement, in its opinion of May 28, 1948, that of factors to be taken into account in considering conditions in Art 4, “no relevant political factor … connected with the conditions of admission is excluded”.
Dept has not yet seen details of Peruvian agenda item on rights of candidates to show proof they meet membership requirements. We will, of course, study proposal carefully.1
4. We also see basic difficulties in apparent UK FonOff suggestion (urtel 380) that Sov veto Italy’s application might be treated by SC, presumably on ruling by Pres, as lacking effect because it was explicitly based on grounds lying outside terms of Art 4. USSR cld easily frustrate such action by vetoing on alleged Charter grounds or by stating no reasons at all. Moreover, we have grave doubts as to propriety under Charter of a proceeding, analogous to that for overriding [Page 353] double veto, under which judgment wld be passed on reason for Member’s vote and, if those reasons found to lie outside Charter, SC wld treat negative note [vote] as ineffective. Such a step wld go far beyond anything we or other permanent Members of SC have ever conceived and might open way to practical elimination of veto from subjects to which it has incontestably applied. This is obviously very different matter from procedure already employed by Council to determine whether a particular matter is clearly procedural.
As to UK alternative suggestion, SC Pres cld obviously not himself refer question to ICJ for advisory opinion and SC Res requesting such opinion is probably subject to veto.
5. GA cld request advisory opinion from ICJ as to whether past SC votes on Ital membership constitute SC recommendation for Ital membership despite negative vote USSR. However, we wld have most serious doubts of desirability and propriety of submitting an issue to ICJ so predominantly political in character. Even if Court were willing to give opinion on question, favorable opinion wld seem most unlikely. Further, USSR cld complicate attempt by itself raising question of Ital membership again in SC and casting its veto on alleged Charter grounds.
6. If our efforts obtain Italy’s admission fail, US wld be prepared vote for amendment to Art 86 to give Italy membership in TC if Italy desired it. However, we see little likelihood success such an amendment since it wld be subject veto by USSR. Dept wld also favor arrangement for participation by Ital without voting rights in main GA committees if desired by Italians. We understand, however, that Italy not interested in such arrangement.
7. We regret inability to suggest more positive procedure than renewed and energetic effort in SC. We feel, however, that as indicated above, no other suggestion yet made offers prospect of success. We wld be glad to give further consideration to any other proposal which promises to be effective.
8. Dept believes consultations with Italy necessary after above views discussed with UK and Fr Dels. FYI as follow up de Gasperi conversations, we plan give Italy our views on Ital Aide-Mémoire in detail both here and in New York.