Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, East Asia and the Pacific, Volume XII, Part 2

656.56D13/11–3054: Telegram

No. 300
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Lodge) to the Department of State

confidential
priority

New York, November 30, 1954—7 p.m.

Delga 312. For the Secretary. West New Guinea question probably will be voted on in Committee I today and go to plenary before the end of the week and it is, therefore, essential that I have clear instructions on whether this is an important question requiring two-thirds vote within the meaning of Article 18 of Charter.¹

I. Without prejudice to our decision to abstain on the merits of this question, both in committee and in plenary (with which decision I heartily agree) I strongly recommend for the following reasons that we take the position in the plenary, if the question arises, that this matter requires a two-thirds vote.

a. It is clear that the question is in fact an important one within the spirit and letter of the Charter. Indonesia raised it under Articles 35, 10, and 14 of the Charter as “a latent threat to the peace and security of that part of the world” (A/2964). The question therefore clearly falls within the first category of “important” questions stipulated in Article 18(2) of the Charter on which all decisions require a two-thirds vote.

[b.] By taking this position we will, to a considerable extent, be strengthening our own future position regarding Chinese representation if and when the question of whether Chinese representation requires a two-thirds vote arises. If we vote that this is not an important question, we weaken our future position to an even greater extent.

c. Moreover, the position we take on voting question in respect of the New Guinea issue has important consequences for other questions of a similar nature, e.g., Cyprus.

II. Also request authority (if I am invited to do so) to agree to preside as vice-president in place of van Kleffens² who I understand plans to step down when this item is taken up. This would be logical because of the US position of abstention on the merits while all of the other vice-presidents have taken positions on one side or the other. Furthermore, if I were in the chair I would be better able to control any procedural debate that might arise on the two-thirds question. If I were in the chair I would plan not to make a ruling on this question since I do not consider that it is within the competence of the chair to rule on it. I would put the question to the assembly for decision by a majority vote and in the course of the procedural debate I would recognize an appropriate representative of the US, probably Wadsworth,³ to state the US position on the procedural question. Our statement on the procedural question would have to make a clear distinction between the procedural question and the merits of the instant case and I think this could readily be done.

Lodge

1. In the evening of Nov. 30, Committee I voted on a resolution (U.N. document A/C.1/L.110) submitted by Argentina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, India, Syria, and Yugoslavia, which provided that the General Assembly would express the hope that the two parties would pursue their efforts to solve the West New Guinea question in conformity with the principles of the U.N. Charter and report back to the Tenth Session of the General Assembly. For the record of the meeting, see U.N. document A/C.1/SR.735. The resolution was approved by a vote of 34 to 14, with 10 abstentions (including the United States). The Netherlands voted against the resolution, while Indonesia abstained. The General Assembly did not take up the question until Dec. 10.
2. Eelco N. van Kleffens of the Netherlands was President of the Ninth Session of the U.N. General Assembly.
3. James J. Wadsworth was a member of the U.S. Delegation to the Ninth Session of the U.N. General Assembly.