310.2/11–1654: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Lodge) to the Department of State
priority
Delga 240. Re membership. As Department aware India-Indonesia resolution referring all pending resolutions (i.e., Australian proposal on Laos and Cambodia, Soviet package proposal, joint LA proposal covering ten applicants, and US amendment on ROK and Vietnam) adopted 25–24 with 6 abstentions. Those absent were Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Liberia, and Venezuela. Abstentions were Afghanistan, Canada, Ethiopia, Iran, Israel, and Peru. It is possible that when Plenary considers Committee report on membership this resolution could be defeated, provided 4 absent LA states voted with US and Canada, which was confused in Committee proceedings, changed its abstention to negative vote. A few affirmative votes, namely Bolivia, Greece and the Philippines, might possibly be influenced to shift.
We see three possible courses:
1. If resolutions relating to particular applicants are not reintroduced in Plenary, we could vote in favor of referral resolution, making [Page 1072] appropriate explanation of vote, i.e., including emphasis that this constitutes strictly procedural action and implies no endorsement whatsoever of the substance of the resolution, and particularly Soviet package proposal; that we will insist in SC that each applicant be considered on its own merits; and that we will continue vigorous support applications fourteen qualified states. Affirmative vote on India-Indonesia referral resolution would be analogous to US support referral Indian disarmament resolution to Disarmament Commission despite our objection substance of that resolution.
With respect to our vote yesterday in Ad Hoc Political Committee against referral, we did so on ground publicly stated that we desired opportunity to vote on substantive proposals and in particular in favor of endorsement qualified applicants. We also made clear in Committee statement that our objection to referral of Soviet package to SC was on ground it is not in same category as resolutions reendorsing 14 qualified applicants. It is possible that a negative vote on the India-Indonesia referral resolution in the Plenary, in the absence of resubmitted resolutions re applicants, would be misinterpreted by the 14 qualified applicants and world opinion generally as wakening our support for their admission.
2. We could move for separate vote on documents listed in referral resolution, voting in favor referral all documents, except Soviet package proposal. Since vote in Ad Hoc Committee on referral latter was 24–21–10, with some lobbying we might be able defeat its referral. However, such move likely to decrease US prestige as being over-rigid, considering unlikelihood of SC taking referral action seriously.
3. Since we have already made US position clear on Soviet package in Committee and see little advantage in repeating same performance in Plenary, we could simply vote on referral resolution as a whole and seek to enlist enough votes to defeat it. We would take line that India-Latin American Resolution provides for referral of full GA records to SC and it is therefore superfluous for Plenary to adopt India-Indonesia referral resolution.
In light of prospect that votes on resolutions re particular applicants will likely be by unimpressive majorities, or certainly by majority smaller than in the past, we think we should not encourage their resubmission for Plenary action. In this regard attitude of Australians and Latin Americans important. We do not know at present what action if any Australia is contemplating in Plenary. UKDel tells us Australia now inclined to feel no further action called for, the record having been made. Ribas (Cuba) however at the conclusion of the Ad Hoc Political Committee yesterday and again today did indicate his hope that the referral resolution would be defeated and the other resolutions resubmitted. He also suggested possibility joint co-sponsorship by Cuba, El Salvador, Australia, Pakistan, Thailand and US of resolution favoring all 14 of qualified applicants.
Department should also consider whether India-Indonesia referral resolution should be regarded as subject to two-thirds rule. We believe case can be made either way, but in light of legislative history this [Page 1073] proposal believe it would be difficult to convince enough dels that it requires two-thirds majority.
At meeting today Ambassador Wadsworth and staff arrived at following consensus and recommendations.
- a.
- It is desirable to conclude Plenary action with minimum wrangle and as expeditiously as possible.
- b.
- We should not encourage resubmittal of resolutions relating to individual applicants.
- c.
- We should not press for GA decision that Indian-Indonesian referral resolution requires two-thirds majority.
- d.
- If resolutions relating to individual applicants resubmitted in Plenary, we should vote against referral resolution and seek support of others to do same. If referral resolution defeated, we would then vote in favor of resolutions relating to endorsement of 14 qualified applicants and against Soviet package resolution (if resubmitted).
- e.
- If resolutions relating to individual applicants not resubmitted, we should vote in favor of referral resolution and make explanation of vote along lines indicated in (1) above.
Since number of dels anxious to have our views, request instructions as soon as possible. We expect Plenary to consider membership problem Monday, November 22.