UNP flies, lot 59 D 237, “Slates”
Memorandum by the Acting Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs (Popper) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Wainhouse)
- Subject:
- Election for Denmark’s Security Council Seat
As you know, Belgium and Sweden are both interested in election at the Ninth Assembly to the Security Council seat now held by Denmark. The UK believes it is up to the two countries to decide which country will run and is unwilling to interfere. However, since Sweden supports the seating of Chinese Communists in the UN, we decided we should take steps quietly to stimulate Belgium’s candidacy. Accordingly, we have informed the British we favor Belgium and have assumed it would be the candidate in view of the past practice of rotating the European seat between Scandinavian and Benelux countries. We also suggested that USUN tell the Belgians that we have assumed it would run. USUN has done this but reports that the Belgians seem to be taking a “modest” attitude toward a possible Swedish candidacy and gave no indication of a desire to dissuade the Swedes.1
The attached cable,2 for your signature, suggests that USUN go back to the Belgians and express the Department’s view that Belgium need not hesitate in seeking the European seat in view of the past practice of Benelux-Scandinavian rotation.
The question still to be resolved is whether we should also discuss the question with the Swedes, telling them frankly that their candidacy would cause difficulties for us.
The arguments in favor are:
- a)
- that our objective is to obtain as safe a margin as possible on the Chinese representation issue. Since Belgium is safer on this issue than Sweden, and since we cannot predict accurately the voting situation in the Council on this issue in 1955 or 1956, we should do what we can to assure that Sweden does not run.
- b)
- that we would probably best be able to assure that Sweden does not run by going to the Swedes directly; and
- c)
- that it would be easier to go to the Swedes now then to wait until they announce their candidacy and then have to inform them we could not support them.
The arguments against are:
- a)
- that the Swedes would deeply resent an initial approach from us, particularly since they probably feel they have a good claim to the European seat. (Belgium has been on the Council before whereas Sweden has not). Interference of this kind would also be resented by [Page 526] other Europeans and might complicate our problems in maintaining their support in the UN.
- b)
- that the Swedes probably realize their candidacy presents difficulties for us and would talk to us before deciding to run. We could then give them our views; and
- c)
- that as far as Chinese representation is concerned, we cannot be certain even of Belgium’s future position, which will probably depend in large part upon the attitude of the UK and France.
EUR prefers not to make an approach to the Swedes. FE feels that we should do what we can to ward off Sweden’s candidacy but leaves the tactics to us. I wonder if you would not want to get Mr. Murphy’s judgement on this question.