UNP files, lot 59 D 237, “Slates”
Minutes of Meeting of Membership Team, Department of State, June 29 and July 2, 1953
- Present: Mr. Wainhouse—UNP
- Mr. Jones—UNP
- Mr. Monsma—ARA
- Mr. Allen—EUR (June 29)
- Mr. Barnard—EUR (July 2)
- Miss Bacon—FE
- Dr. Howard—NEA
A meeting was held in Mr. Wainhouse’s office on June 29, 1953 to consider a UNA paper suggesting (1) that we inform Prince Wan and others, when asked, that we are disposed to support him for the Eighth Assembly Presidency provided he obtains sufficient support from other Members; and (2) that we also inform Dr. Malik of this.1
Miss Bacon said that FE hoped we could take this action, since Prince Wan has long been a candidate, since we have done nothing to discourage him, and since he is under the impression he can count on our support. She thought that it would save us embarrassment if we told Dr. Malik, before he formally enters the race, that we may have to support Prince Wan. Mr. Monsma and Mr. Allen also thought that it would be quite reasonable to take these steps now.
Dr. Howard, however, said that NEA did not wish to foreclose Dr. Malik’s candidacy and thought that it might help our relations with the Arab States if we supported him. Mr. Wainhouse said that UNA had given careful consideration to the problem and thought that both men were well qualified for the job. However, it had come to the conclusion that we should probably give the nod to Prince Wan’s candidacy now because of the special circumstances surrounding his candidacy which Miss Bacon had already mentioned. He also thought there were advantages of electing an individual from the Far East to the Presidency of the next session, where Far Eastern issues will come to the fore, and from a country which had contributed troops to Korea. He believed that we might avoid considerable embarrassment if we took the action suggested and did not wait until Dr. Malik entered the race and then perhaps have to tell him we would support Prince Wan.
Dr. Howard agreed to discuss the matter further within NEA in the light of the discussion.
[Page 469]A second meeting was held in Mr. Wainhouse’s office on July 2 to consider a UNA paper giving tentative recommendations regarding the US positions on the Council slates.2
With respect to the Security Council slate, it was generally agreed that either Peru or Brazil would be a satisfactory successor to Chile and that we should make no decision on which candidate to support until the views of the Latin American states are known. There was also tentative agreement that we should support New Zealand to succeed Pakistan if it is the choice of all the Commonwealth countries. However, Mr. Barnard said that it was EUR’s position that we should support New Zealand even if it did not have India’s backing. In this connection Mr. Jones noted that India had just handed our Embassy in New Delhi an aide-mémoire indicating that India might try to replace Pakistan but wants our views first. It was generally recognized that failure of India to back New Zealand could create a difficult problem for us and that its election might jeopardize our voting margin in the Council on the Chinese representation issue.
With respect to a successor to Greece, there was general agreement that we should oppose the election of a Soviet bloc member, and it was recognized that we would probably have to wage a real campaign in order to win. In this connection, Mr. Wainhouse reported that he believed Ambassador Lodge was ready to fight hard on this election in order to elect a state which does not recognize the Chinese Communist regime. No decision was reached regarding the tentative recommendation that Turkey be our preferred candidate. Mr. Howard thought that Turkey would probably be a stronger candidate than Ethiopia, but that we should not exclude the latter as a possibility. Mr. Barnard mentioned that Turkey was not altogether satisfied with its relationship to NATO at the present time and that it might ease the situation if it was elected to the Security Council. Miss Bacon said that she wished to reserve any position on possible non-Soviet candidates pending further discussion in UN. She pointed out that a country from the Far East had never had a non-permanent seat and she believed FE might wish to consider the Philippines.
Regarding the ECOSOC slate, Mr. Jones noted that UNE favored Thailand for the Philippine seat. Dr. Howard mentioned that NEA did not wish to rule out Afghanistan as a possibility and Miss Bacon thought FE might favor Indonesia if it were not our candidate for the Trusteeship Council. In any case, it was agreed that we could not make even a tentative decision on a successor to the Philippines for ECOSOC until we reached a decision on a successor to Greece for the Security Council.
[Page 470]It was tentatively agreed that since Soviet bloc representation on ECOSOC was reduced last year and in view of the need to concentrate on defeating a satellite for the Security Council, we should not campaign against a satellite to succeed Poland on ECOSOC, although we might abstain.
As far as the successor to Sweden is concerned, it was tentatively agreed that we should probably support Norway. However, Miss Bacon said that while she did not want to press the issue now, she was concerned that one seat should always rotate among the Scandinavian countries and one seat among the Benelux states. She thought that at some point consideration should be given to a candidate from another area for one of these seats. Mr. Wainhouse and Mr. Jones agreed in principle, but thought that this was not the year to do so. They also pointed out the necessity of maintaining a safe balance on the Chinese representation issue and the importance of electing countries to ECOSOC which could make a constructive contribution to its work.
It was generally agreed that in accordance with the general understanding that the Big Five should always be represented on ECOSOC, we should vote for the reelection of the UK and the USSR, and that as between the Latin American candidates for Uruguay’s seat (Ecuador, Uruguay and Bolivia), we should make no choice until the views of the Latin American States are known.
As far as the Trusteeship Council is concerned, it was generally agreed that we might support Indonesia rather than India to replace Thailand unless Indonesia is our candidate for ECOSOC. It was noted that Liberia has been interested in election to the Trusteeship Council in the past, although we have not heard anything definite on this for some time. Mr. Howard, after consultation with AF, reported that it might be best not to promote its candidacy. Lastly, agreement was reached that we should probably support the Latin American choice to succeed the Dominican Republic. Mr. Jones said that we have recently been informed by a member of the Dominican Republic delegation that Haiti might not run, in which event Uruguay might be the candidate.
It was recognized that no final recommendations would be reached on any of the slates pending further consultation with USUN and the geographic bureaus.