Office of the Historian

150. Telegram From the Department of State to the Secretary of State, at Geneva1

Washington, November 8, 1955—7:44 p.m.

Tedul 68. Eyes only Secretary from Acting Secretary. Re your Dulte 57.2 I have discussed with Cabot the tactical question of an approach to the French and the Russians on the veto matter, outlining our preoccupation that without assurance on the veto matter we might be placed in a most awkward position if the public statement is made. The result could conceivably be that in the end we would fail in our objective to obtain the admission of the 13 friendly countries, having, however, publicly surrendered the principle on which we have stood heretofore. It was assumed by Dept that Soviet assurance on the veto was a condition precedent to application of the present membership plan. Cabot seems to believe that an approach to the Russians now on the veto matter would not be fruitful and is inclined to proceed with the public statement in the absence of a Russian assurance. He states the opinion that we could win out in the GA on the issue and obtain an important [Page 339] propaganda effect. We have agreed to defer a decision pending further examination of the problem.3

Hoover
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 310.2/11–855. Top Secret. Drafted by Murphy. Repeated to USUN.↩
  2. Printed as telegram 37, supra.↩
  3. Delga 242 from USUN, November 9, contained a suggested revision of Lodge’s proposed statement “which is designed to eliminate necessity of advance consultations with Soviets and at same time improve our negotiating position generally.” The revision reads as follows: “It has been reported that the Soviet Union would be willing to withhold its veto and accept these free nations as members of the UN if the free world is willing to accept the admission of nations behind the so-called iron curtain—nations whose governments are not equals among equals as are nations of the free world, but are in a subordinate relationship to Moscow. Since Outer Mongolia would obviously be generally unacceptable, this would mean Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania.” (Department of State, Central Files, 310.2/11–955)↩