UNP files, lot 59 D 237, “Slates”
Memorandum by the Acting Director of the Office of United Nations-Political and Security Affairs (Popper) to the Assistant Secretary of State for united Nations Affairs (Key)
- Subject:
- US Position on Election of Soviet Bloc Candidates to UN Posts
A meeting was held last week with the regional bureaus to consider the attached position paper on election of members of the functional commissions of ECOSOC.1 Paragraph (d) under “United States Position” states that “no vote should be cast in favor of the USSR or any of its satellites for election to the Commissions”, and Annex I, which is to serve as general guidance to the delegation on slates for particular commissions, suggests in some cases that we cast a blank ballot on Soviet bloc candidates and in other cases that we vote for a non-Soviet candidate as a replacement.
Mr. Allen said that EUR did not agree that in no case should we vote for a Soviet bloc candidate. He said that EUR thought this position would accomplish nothing, would not be in accord with our overall posture in the cold war and would constitute a source of difference between us and our European allies, who would see in it only an ineffectual move to irritate the Soviet bloc. Mr. Allen stated that EUR believed that we should, as a general rule, vote for Soviet bloc candidates for a proportionate share of appropriate UN posts unless (a) there is a friendly candidate we want to see elected instead, (b) the election of a Soviet bloc candidate would adversely affect our security interests, or (c) its election would prejudice our position in the UN body concerned or the body’s work. In these circumstances we should not merely abstain but vote against. Mr. Allen asked whether there had been a firm policy decision that we should not vote for the USSR or any satellite.
The background on this question is as follows:
- 1.
- At the beginning of the eighth session our position on Soviet bloc candidates was taken up with the Secretary. A Memorandum of Conference with the Secretary, dated September 22, 1953, states that “the Secretary is against voting for Soviet candidates in Councils. We would not campaign for or against such candidates with the exception of course, of opposing the election of a satellite to the Security Council since we want Turkey elected”.
- 2.
- FE, in a memorandum to Mr. Popper from Miss Bacon of September 30, 1953, expressed the view that “extension of this policy to secondary UN bodies may have a serious effect upon our efforts to obtain election for Chinese candidates in the future”, since “in dealing with UN Members unsympathetic with the Chinese Government, one [Page 545] of our most effective arguments in seeking support for Chinese candidates is that the Big Five should be represented.” FE accordingly urged that the policy “not be extended to lesser bodies.”
- 3.
- Mr. Sandifer brought to Mr. Murphy’s attention the statement of the Secretary’s position quoted above and also FE’s memorandum. Mr. Sandifer later informed us that Mr. Murphy thought the Secretary’s view as reflected in the ‘Memorandum of Conference’ was intended to be applicable to all elections during the Assembly. He also told Mr. Sandifer that Mr. Merchant and Mr. Bonbright did not agree with the policy.
- 4.
- Ambassador Lodge, during a delegation meeting on October 1, said he understood the position to be that the US would never vote for the Soviet Union or a satellite for any position in the UN.
- 5.
- Mr. Sandifer, on October 30, 1953, sent a memorandum to the office directors of UNA which stated that in connection with elections to UN and specialized agency bodies and offices “it is our present policy not to vote for the election of the USSR or any Soviet bloc candidate. However, in some instances, as in the case of elections to bodies where the Big Five have traditionally been elected, we would not campaign against a Soviet bloc candidate but would abstain from voting”.
- 6.
- The question was raised this year as to what our position should be with respect to Soviet bloc candidates for ECE and ECOSOC offices. In both of these cases, a Czech was the only candidate for a particular post and was certain to be elected by acclamation unless we demanded a vote in order to record our position. The Department decided that we would not ourselves demand a separate vote. It also decided that if for any reason a vote was taken, we would abstain.
It seems to UNP, on the basis of the above, that it may be said that current Department policy is against voting for a Soviet bloc candidate for any post, although whether we campaign and vote against a particular candidate or abstain must depend upon the circumstances of each case. If you agree, we suggest that you point this out to Mr. Barbour to obtain EUR’s clearance of the position paper on the functional commissions on the basis of the policy.
In the light of the facts noted above UNE [ UNP?] agrees that there is evidently a general policy not to vote for Soviet bloc candidates, although it does not agree that this policy should apply to all subsidiary bodies for the same reasons advanced by EUR and FE. I personally agree with the EUR position that we do not stand to gain by automatically failing to support any Soviet candidate, but I recognize that we are bound to follow the existing policy until it is changed.
- Not attached.↩