Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume XI

102. Paper Prepared by Elizabeth Ann Brown of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs¹

Washington, March 8, 1955.

SURVEY OF MEMBERSHIP PROBLEM, 1955

1. The applications of 19 states remain pending before the United Nations. Fourteen of the 19 have been supported for admission by the United States and a majority of the United Nations members, but their applications have been blocked by the Soviet veto in the Security Council. These 14 states are Austria, Cambodia, Ceylon, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Libya, Laos, Nepal, Portugal, Republic of Korea, and Viet-Nam. In addition, there are five Soviet sponsored candidates (Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, “the Mongolian People’s Republic”, Rumania), none of whom have received the required majority in the Assembly or Security Council. Finally, the North Korean and Viet-Minh regimes submitted applications, which were never officially acknowledged by any Security Council action, but which are nevertheless sometimes listed by Secretariat and other sources as applicants for UN membership.

2. In the 9th Session of the General Assembly a resolution was adopted according to which all the pending applications were sent back to the Security Council “for further consideration and positive recommendations”. The Security Council was also requested to consider the possibility of invoking the provisions of Article 28(2) of the Charter which provides for periodic meetings of the Council. Furthermore, the Good Offices Committee consisting of representatives of Egypt, the Netherlands, and Peru, which was established by the 8th session, was continued; and both this Committee and the Security Council were requested to report to the 10th Assembly. This means that at some time shortly, probably this summer, the Security Council will have to consider the membership question. Unless there has been some basic change in the position of the respective members, however, it may be that Council consideration can be limited to confirming the fact that positions have not changed, making it unnecessary to vote on the pending applications once again.

3. In initiating negotiations for a peace treaty with the USSR, Japan has indicated its intention to try to get from the USSR a commitment to support its admission into the United Nations as a part of the overall negotiations. So far the USSR has never included Japan in its “package”. Last year Japanese sources were inclined to believe that Japan had no chance for admission unless a solution of the Chinese representation issue was reached simultaneously. In the current negotiations, however, there have been no indications whether Japan would seek an outright unqualified commitment from the USSR or would be willing to accept a “deal” of some sort that would tie Japan’s admission to the admission of certain other outstanding candidates. It seems likely that Japan will insist upon an unqualified commitment, if it seriously desires admission into the United Nations. Whether the USSR would make such a commitment depends upon the importance it now attaches to regularizing its relations with Japan in the context of the present Far Eastern situation and on its position generally regarding membership. It is possible, however, that Japan might simply accept inclusion in the Soviet “package”, if it can obtain other substantial concessions in return, in which case there would be increasing pressure upon the United States to relax its position on a “package” arrangement.

4. The issue of Chinese representation has an important bearing on the membership question. It is possible that the USSR will not modify its present position on membership until this issue has been resolved in some way. Furthermore, any relaxation of the present position of the United States with respect to the Soviet sponsored candidates could have undesirable repercussions so far as the Chinese representation question is concerned. Accordingly, it may be that this issue precludes any progress toward a solution of the membership impasse, with the possible exception of an agreement to admit several of the “non-committed” states, which in itself seems unlikely.

5. There are certain other prospects for action on membership:

(a) Last year the Secretary General suggested the possibility of reaching agreement on several states not clearly aligned with either East or West. Corridor rumors in New York mentioned such states as Austria, Finland, Libya, and Jordan in this connection. No actual proposals along this line were considered, however, apparently because informal soundings in the Soviet Delegation disclosed that the USSR would not go along on such a limited arrangement. It might nevertheless be worthwhile to try this tack again if we feel we could afford to add three or four such states at the expense of strong supporters of the West, who have equal if not better claims to prompt admission. If it were decided to proceed along these lines, the matter could be informally discussed with one or more members of the Good Offices Committee with a view to its developing some such recommendation.

(b) The possibility of an overall agreement to admit all outstanding candidates should be reviewed just prior to Security Council consideration of the membership question. It is assumed, however, that in the absence of a basic change in the current international situation it would not be possible to agree to admission of all nineteen candidates.

(c) The position which the United States takes on the membership question this year should be considered in relation to the proposals we may develop in connection with Charter review. If we intend to seek amendment of Article 4 of the Charter, it might be possible to move toward a settlement which would not take place until sometime in 1956 as a consequence of Charter review. At the least we could work toward a recommendation by the 10th Assembly that Members review their position on membership in light of the forthcoming Charter Review Conference.

(d) As suggested by the United States in 1954, arrangements could be devised for non-member participation in the General Assembly, pending the time that agreement can be reached on admission of qualified outstanding applicants. There is attached a separate paper on this subject,² suggesting its study during the current year by the Interim Committee.

1. Source: Department of State, UNP Files: Lot 59 D 237, Membership. Confidential. An addressee is not indicated on the source text which, however, contains the handwritten notation: “DHP—11:00 a.m. Mtg 3/9/55.” David H. Popper was Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs.
2. Not printed.