Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

UNP files, lot 59 D 237, “Membership”

Briefing Memorandum for the Appointed Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Murphy)¹

secret

[Washington,] July 3, 1953.

Admission of New Members

i. the problem

United Nations Members have become increasingly concerned over the membership deadlock. The question will again be considered at the Eighth Session.

ii. background

Under Article 4, membership is open to “peace loving” states which are “able and willing” to carry out their Charter obligations. The Assembly admits an applicant state “upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

Fourteen of the pending applicants (Austria, Cambodia, Ceylon, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Portugal and Vietnam) have been vetoed by the USSR and five (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Outer Mongolia and Rumania) have never received seven Security Council votes for admission. Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany have not yet applied.

The USSR has proposed the admission en bloc of nine non-Soviet applicants (all but Japan, the Republic of Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) and the five Soviet candidates. This proposal has never been accepted. Some Latin American countries have proposed that the Assembly can admit non-Soviet applicants vetoed by the USSR on the grounds that the veto does not apply to membership applications.

A Committee established by the Seventh Assembly met this spring to examine all proposed solutions. Its report contains no specific recommendations. However, it shows that the Latin American proposals for direct Assembly action were generally unacceptable and that whereas the specific Soviet package deal was also unacceptable, many Members felt that the only solution is probably an omnibus settlement involving the admission of both Soviet and non-Soviet applicants.

iii. present u.s. position

1. Recognizing the desirability of the admission of all qualified states, we have supported the admission of the fourteen non-Soviet candidates and opposed the admission of the five Soviet candidates.

2. We have opposed the Soviet “package” on the grounds that each applicant should be considered on its own merits, that the “package” includes applicants which are not qualified and that it omits Japan and others which are.

3. We have indicated that we would not veto membership applications but have maintained that a Security Council recommendation on an application is subject to the veto and that a Council recommendation is necessary before the Assembly can admit an applicant.

4. We have recognized that under existing procedures the only solution to the deadlock probably is an omnibus settlement including Soviet and non-Soviet applicants, but have been unwilling to seek or agree to such a settlement.

5. We intend to reexamine our position before the Eighth Session in the light of circumstances then existing. In May Ambassador Lodge indicated he is generally in favor of seeking an omnibus solution under right circumstances provided this would not adversely affect the Chinese representation problem, provided the USSR and the satellites have given concrete evidence by deeds of a sincerity of peaceful purpose, and provided satisfactory terms of a settlement providing for states we favor can be worked out.

iv. anticipated developments

There may be strong pressure in the Assembly for an omnibus settlement. Support for this course will probably increase if the USSR shows a willingness to reach satisfactory solutions on other longstanding issues.

1. Drafted by Paul W. Jones.