Office of the Historian

315.3/7–753

The United States Representative at the United Nations (Lodge) to the Under Secretary of State for Administration (Lourie)

New York, July 7, 1953.

Dear Don: Enclosed is the latest letter from Secretary General Hammarskjold—in reply to my own of July 2, 1953—concerning the [Page 297] statement he proposes to make before the Economic and Social Council on the problem of access to the Headquarters District.

You will note that he appears to concede the point I made in my letter to him, namely, that his statement sets out “many of the procedures which are open to the United States”. He states that “there might possibly be other procedures open to the United States which would be consistent with the Headquarters Agreement”.

Hammarskjold states that in the absence of further word from me he assumes that I accept—in the light of his interpretation of his authority under the Headquarters Agreement—that portion of his statement that the United States will consult with him and keep him as fully informed as possible to assure that decisions concerning the entry of aliens are made in accord with the right of the United States Government to protect its own security under the Headquarters Agreement. Hammarskjold’s interpretation of his authority, as stated in his letter1 which I transmitted to you on June 24th, is that he has no power to enter into any arrangements with the United States which will alter the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement, that is, increase the rights of the United States or decrease those of the United Nations. I think this interpretation is correct, as is Hammarskjold’s assumption that his stated position is acceptable to us.

Unless you advise me that the Department feels differently, I do not propose to reply to Hammarskjold’s letter of July 3rd.

I understand that you are considering the instructions to be sent to our ECOSOC Representative at Geneva concerning the position he ought to take there with respect to Hammarskjold’s statement when it is submitted to ECOSOC. I believe it would be a mistake for our Representative to become involved in any discussion concerning this statement, and strongly urge that he be instructed to refrain from all comment, formal or informal, with respect to it.

Sincerely yours,

Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
[Enclosure]

The Secretary-General of the United Nations (Hammarskjold) to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Lodge)

United Nations, New York, 3 July 1953.

My Dear Lodge: I thank you for your letter of 2 July 1953, in which you tell me that you see no objection to my making the statement to the Economic and Social Council in the form in which I sent it to you by my letter of 22 June.

In your letter you mention in passing that you do not agree in full with the statements in my letter of transmittal. You also say that you [Page 298] accept my addition to the text as setting out “many of the procedures which are open to the United States”. There might possibly be other procedures open to the United States which would be consistent with the Headquarters Agreement. But these two passages in your letter might be read as implying some reservations regarding my basic position, as expressed in my letter and draft statement of 22 June. However, I presume that—as you have not found it called for to elaborate your views—you accept what is summarized in the last paragraph of my statement—that is, that the United States “will consult me and keep me as fully informed as possible to assure that the decision is made in accord with the rights of the United States Government to protect its own security under the (Headquarters) Agreement”—in the light of my interpretation of my authority under the Headquarters Agreement as stated in my letter of transmittal, especially in the last paragraph. The text of my statement as it now stands will undoubtedly give rise to many questions in the Economic and Social Council. An interpretation of the statement in accordance with this conviction of mine as to the limits of my rights, is, of course for me, the basis on which I shall have to defend my view that the matter has now been settled “in a manner which in practice should assure the mutual satisfaction of the parties concerned.”

If I do not hear from you, I shall take it that my assumption is correct and under these circumstances my replies to the Members of the Economic and Social Council will be in accordance with my position as I have already stated it to you.

Yours sincerely,

Dag Hammarskjold
  1. Dated June 22, p. 293.↩