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

UNP files, lot 59 D 237, “Membership”

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)¹

confidential

[Washington,] May 13, 1954.

• Subject:
• Your Appointment with Ambassador Belaunde

Ambassador Belaunde wants to discuss the UN membership question when he meets with you on May 17 at 10:30 a.m. He is Chairman of the GA Committee established to consult with SC members to try to break the deadlock.

He might also mention Peru’s candidacy to succeed Colombia on the Security Council.

1. Membership—Belaunde has already discussed the problem with Ambassador Lodge and others at USUN (see USUN’s 612 and 618 and memorandum of conversation of April 28 attached).² He suggests a package of twelve, including three Soviet-sponsored applicants (Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania) and nine non-Soviet applicants (Austria, Ceylon, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Libya, Nepal, and Portugal). Apparently he has in mind that agreement would be reached in advance to admit all twelve but the twelve would be divided into groups to be admitted in separate stages. Ireland, Finland and Austria, for instance, would be offered as one unit.

The applicants not included in Belaunde’s package are two Soviet-sponsored candidates (Albania and Outer Mongolia) and five non-Soviet candidates (Japan, Republic of Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia). Belaunde’s list differs from the Soviet package in that Albania and Outer Mongolia are not included.

Belaunde told Ambassador Lodge that Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania were presently “outside of the international order”. He recalled that the International Court of Justice has held that these satellites should name members to arbitration commissions under their peace treaties, and he thought the UK might persuade them to name the individuals who would be approved by us in advance. (In 1949, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US charged the satellites with systematic violation of the human rights provisions of the peace treaties and pressed for settlement through the treaty procedures, under which each party would name a representative to a special arbitration commission and these two would then agree upon a third member, or failing agreement, the UN Secretary-General would name him. The three satellites, however, have refused to cooperate. In an advisory opinion the Court held that the satellites were obligated to name representatives to the commissions but all three denied the Court’s jurisdiction. In 1950 the Assembly condemned the willful refusal of the satellites to fulfill their obligations. We have cited this case as evidence that these satellites are not qualified for UN membership).

As you know, the Department has decided against a package deal, principally because our agreement to admit Soviet-sponsored applicants despite their conduct would make it harder for us to keep out the Chinese Communists. Under Belaunde’s package, we would have to agree to the admission, at least at some stage, of three Soviet-sponsored candidates (Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania). For this reason, and because the package does not provide for certain states we favor (Japan, Republic of Korea and the three Indo-Chinese states), Belaunde’s package is unacceptable to us. It is therefore important not to give him any encouragement. At the same time, since he is such a staunch friend of ours, and in view of his strong feelings on the need for a solution to the membership problem, it is, of course, advisable to give him a full opportunity to state his views on the question.

In giving him our membership position, we recommend that you indicate the following:

1. We share his concern over the continued deadlock, and we have recently reexamined the entire problem and have given very careful consideration to his proposal.

2. We have again concluded, however, that we must continue to oppose the admission of Soviet-sponsored applicants which in our view do not now meet the criteria of “peace-loving” states which are “able and willing” to carry out their obligations.

3. Even if we could agree to the admission of Soviet-sponsored applicants we could not consent to a trade which provided for their admission but which did not provide for Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Indo-China states.

If Belaunde raises the question of the appointment of members to the arbitration commissions under the peace treaties, we suggest you reply that in the light of the history of this problem we believe no country could persuade the three satellites to name individuals to the commissions.³

[Here follows a short discussion of the Security Council election situation.]

1. Drafted by Paul W. Jones (UNP).
2. Apr. 28 memorandum of conversation not found in Department of State files.
3. Ambassador Belaunde was unable to keep the appointment with Assistant Secretary Key on May 17 and instead sent a memorandum dated May 16 through the Peruvian Embassy in Washington. This memorandum was forwarded by Key to Ambassador Lodge under a letter of May 17, 1954, not printed (Hickerson–Murphy–Key files, lot 58 D 33, “Ambassador Lodge”). The Belaunde memorandum has not been found in the files of the Department of State.