Office of the Historian
  1. Home
  2. Historical Documents
  3. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III
  4. Document 568

310.2/6–652

Memorandum by the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs ( Bacon ), to the Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs ( Young )

secret
[ Washington ,] June 6, 1952.
  • Subject:
  • Japan’s Membership in the UN

Tokyo’s 390 June 51 reports that the Japanese Government has not yet decided whether to seek UN membership immediately or to wait until after the conclusion of Malik’s presidency on July 1.

1.
Immediate action required: Tokyo has already been given general background information with regard to Japan’s candidacy for UN membership (Deptel to Tokyo 12, April 28). As Japan is aware of the situation with regard to the Soviet veto it is believed that we do not need to offer any advice at this time but should permit Japan to make its own decision with regard to the timing of its application.
2.
Possible developments in the Security Council: When Japan’s application reaches the Security Council, various developments are possible and the exact procedures which may be followed cannot be foreseen now.

When Japan’s application is presented the USSR might approve it or might veto.

[Page 810]

Alternatively the USSR might submit a substitute resolution proposing the admission of 14 applicants (the list submitted in the Security Council in February) or variations on that list.

Alternatively the USSR might seek to amend the Japanese application by adding additional applicants.

Problems for the U.S. to decide would include:

(1)
Should we sponsor a resolution putting the Japanese candidacy before the Security Council? (Such action would show our interest but also would place Japan specifically under our sponsorship.)
(2)
Should we vote down the Soviet proposals or seek to amend them by adding candidates of our own (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Laos)?
(3)
Should we favor discussion of the Japanese application in the Security Council or in the committee of a whole?

Some of these questions involve the much disputed general membership problem, renewed consideration of which will be necessary at once. I have talked with UNP and it is hoped that UNP, NA and FE can get together on these problems in the near future.

  1. Not printed (310.2/6–552).↩