Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, General: Economic and Political Matters, Volume I, Part 1

340/4–2252

Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Thorp) and the Assistant Secretary for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson) to the Secretary of State²

confidential

[Washington,]April 22, 1952.

• Subject:
• U.S. Role in Executing General Assembly Decision on International Development Fund

Discussion:

At its last session³ the United Nations General Assembly, by a vote of 30–16, instructed its Economic and Social Council to prepare and submit to the next GA a “detailed plan for establishing, as soon as circumstances permit, a special fund for grants in aid and for low-interest, long-term loans to underdeveloped countries … to finance non-self-liquidating projects which are basic to their economic development.”⁴ This is perhaps the most important GA resolution which has been adopted against the strong opposition of the U.S. The vote represents a clear cut split between the so-called developed and underdeveloped countries.

If ECOSOC assigns the job of preparing the blueprint to the Economic Committee, on which all ECOSOC members are represented, the U.S. will of necessity participate in drafting the blueprint. If the job is assigned to a smaller committee of government representatives, the U.S. will certainly not ask to be represented. What should the U.S. position be, however, if we are urged by others to serve despite our known opposition to the establishment of an international grant-in-aid program?

1. The chief reasons for accepting appointment to an ECOSOC committee to draw up the blueprint requested by the GA are:

(a) As a matter of general policy, the U.S. should accept majority decisions of UN members, particularly where they do not require legislation or appropriation. We should therefore be willing to contribute our best technical advice if it is solicited for blueprint drafting;

(b) Even though under present conditions we would vote against the plan in the GA, we still have an interest in getting the best possible one presented to the GA by the ECOSOC;

(c) A refusal on the part of the U.S. might lead to similar refusals on the part of Belgium, Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom. A general boycott on the part of the developed countries, for which the U.S. would doubtless be blamed, would hurt us and weaken the UN (Mrs. Roosevelt,⁵ among others, feels particularly strongly on this point.);

(d) A U.S. refusal, followed by acceptances on the part of other developed countries, would focus attention on our isolated position. The U.S.S.R. and the underdeveloped countries would make heavy propaganda capital out of the situation;

(e) There is ample precedent in the UN for participation in program drafting without subsequent commitment as to contribution. Compare, for example, the number of countries that have participated in the arrangements to resist aggression in Korea with the number that have provided troops.

2. The advantages of refusing to help draft the blueprint are:

(a) It avoids the paradoxical position of participating in the creation of something to which we are at the present time basically opposed, a position which is bound to give rise to serious conflicts among the backstopping agencies in Washington;

(b) It increases the probability that we will be able to oppose the final product; the less we have to do with its preparation, the less satisfactory it is likely to be from our point of view;

(c) It softens the let-down and irritation if and when we vote against the blueprint in the GA; no matter how much explaining we will have done, our delegate will find himself somewhat compromised if the U.S. has participated in the drafting group and other representatives have made an effort to accommodate their views to ours.

3. A possible middle ground would be for the U.S. to refuse to participate but privately to encourage Canada and Sweden to do so. This would avoid a general boycott by the developed countries and would leave us a freer hand. It is hardly in keeping, however, with our position in the world today.

4. On balance, therefore, we believe that the U.S. should not refuse to serve on the committee if requested by others to do so.

5. Before the matter of committee composition is discussed by ECOSOC, the U.S. Representative should make clear our view that circumstances do not permit the establishment of a grant fund at this time and that, in principle, the U.S. has serious reservations about the feasibility of internationally-administered grant aid for economic development. If the U.S. is nevertheless named to the committee, the U.S. Representative in the committee should give technical advice, avoiding as best he can the implication that the U.S. would support the establishment of a grant fund if his advice were followed.

6. To keep Congress in the picture, Mr. Lubin⁶ as U.S. Representative to ECOSOC, should discuss informally with Senators Lodge and Sparkman⁷ and Representatives Mansfield and Vorys,⁸ the proposed U.S. role in preparing the blueprint.

Recommendation:

In view of the controversial character of the subject and the widespread interest in it, you may wish to inform the President of the proposed position, provided, of course, you agree with it. The Treasury and certain other agencies probably feel that the U.S. should have nothing whatsoever to do with preparing a blueprint on the ground that participation cannot help but compromise our ultimate stand. From a foreign policy viewpoint, however, we simply are not free to remain aloof. We have tried persistently to strengthen the UN and have castigated the Russians for refusing to accept decisions of the GA majority.

2. This memorandum was not sent forward, although Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Linder drew upon it in making his comments at the Secretary’s Staff Meeting of May 13, 1952. For the notes of the Staff Meeting, see p. 235.
3. The Sixth Session was held in Paris Nov. 6, 1951–Feb. 5, 1952.

4. General Assembly Resolution 520 (VI), passed Jan. 12, 1952; for text, see U.N. General Assembly,Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during its Sixth Session, 6 November 1951 to 5 February 1952, Supplement No. 20 (A/2119). Convenient summaries of all resolutions concerning economic development issues approved in the Sixth Session are contained in the United Nations Bulletin, Feb. 1, 1952, pp. 118–128, and Mar. 1, 1952, pp. 225–227.

   Ellipsis in the source text.

5. Eleanor Roosevelt.
6. Isador Lubin, U.S. Representative in the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
7. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (R.–Mass), and John J. Sparkman (D.–Ala.), members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
8. Mike Mansfield (D.–Mont.), and John M. Vorys (R.–Ohio), members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.