245. Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State1
Delga 514. Re UN membership (Deptel 485, Gadel 97).2 We have canvassed following dels on ROK and Vietnam membership res: Canada, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Luxembourg, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Greece, Ethiopia, Sudan, Tunisia, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Burma, India, Philippines, Denmark, Norway, UK, and France.
Only ones who gave definite “no” on ROK were Austria, India, Denmark, Afghanistan, Egypt. Sudan indicated probable abstentions. Tunisia and Burma indicated no instructions and Norway that it hoped issue would not be pressed.
On basis tally so far we think ROK would get two-thirds vote with solid LA support, most of Europe, and scattered Afro-Asian votes, probably along lines vote on hearing ROK in first committee. LAs and most WE states canvassed would also vote against North Korea. Positive support North Korea expressed only by Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Our guess is that North Korea would also be rejected [Page 489] by vote roughly like that against it in first committee, i.e., about 40–20.
Voting on South Vietnam less certain. Canada indicated they faced problem because of ICC membership; Italy stated position not clear but would probably support US; Portugal said had assumed divided countries would not be pressed; Greece, Egypt, Afghanistan and Sudan thought might abstain; Mexico would abstain although other LAs would vote yes; Denmark and Austria would vote no. While two-thirds majority possible on South Vietnam it would be weaker than for ROK and might only be achieved because of number of abstentions and possibly without support several Western countries. Vote on North Vietnam would fail of two-thirds support, again probably with large number of abstentions.
USSR has indicated to Mexicans they would introduce Res on Outer Mongolia if Res on ROK introduced but would be willing see no action taken otherwise.
In summary, we could probably obtain good majority on ROK and weaker one on South Vietnam, with votes against North Korea and North Vietnam being satisfactory but not too strong.
Aside from this voting check, there is considerable reluctance to take question up at all. UK continues urge against pressing issue, as do Denmark and Norway, with general lack enthusiasm also shown by other friendly dels. Secretariat has prepared paper for possible use Sarper when item reached in committee proposing that he be authorized to inform GA that committee has no recommendation to submit on this issue. This is based on their sense of situation and not, of course, intended to be used if we decide to press issue.
We think that question initiative on ROK should be considered in connection Vietnam and Outer Mongolia and that initiative on one may result in consideration of all.
It would be appreciated if we could have Department’s decision by Thursday so that we may inform Secretariat and friendly dels before conclusion apartheid debate.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 310.2/1–1557. Confidential.↩
- Telegram 485 to USUN, January 3, requested the U.S. Delegation to the United Nations to inform other delegations of “our staunch support ROK and Viet-Nam admission and endeavor elicit support for admission this session.” On the basis of these exploratory conversations, the telegram continued, the Department would decide whether a U.S. initiative in this matter would be constructive. (Ibid., 310.2/12–1056) Gadel 97 to USUN, January 11, reported that the Korean Embassy had twice approached the Department in recent days urging “in strongest terms” that the United States table a membership resolution before the United Nations. The telegram then requested the U.S. Delegation to make its own canvass and report the results “soonest.” (Ibid., 310.2/1–1157)↩