63. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Wilcox) to the Secretary of State1

SUBJECT

  • Proposal to Establish a Permanent UN Corps for Observation, Patrol, and Related Functions

Problem:

To consider whether the United States should sponsor a proposal for a permanent United Nations force.

[Page 173]

Discussion:

1.
Considerable interest has been expressed in Congress and elsewhere in UNEF as the possible prototype or forerunner of a multi-national UN force to deal with political disputes, acts of aggression, armed conflicts, etc. The Governments of Pakistan and Canada are reportedly developing proposals on this subject.
2.
The existence of various situations where United Nations observation or patrol might either deter the outbreak of hostilities or facilitate the cessation of hostilities after they have broken out, suggests that the UNEF experience might now constructively be built upon to augment the available tools for dealing with international disputes, particularly those in the non-Communist world. I believe the Department should be prepared with a realistic and feasible plan for presentation at an auspicious time.
3.
A proposal for a UN corps should be considered as an adjunct to UN procedures for the pacific settlement of disputes, rather than as a collective security-type fighting force designed to repel military aggression. Anything going beyond this limited role would not be likely to secure acceptance at the present time.
4.
Ambassador Lodge feels that the present moment is inappropriate for formal discussions of this idea.2 Given the tactical situation in the Assembly, and the unresolved questions regarding UNEF, I suggest we be flexible as to timing, but be in a position to make a proposal as soon as feasible. Such a proposal is outlined in Tab A, along with a draft resolution (Tab B) establishing a study committee to make recommendations to the General Assembly. The suggested force might be called UN Corps for Observation and Patrol (UNCOP).
5.
Perhaps the best way to stimulate constructive thinking on this matter would be to ask the Secretary General to circulate for general information a memorandum containing proposals based on the attached papers. If you approve, we could work out with Ambassador Lodge suitable timing for such a move, which might be made jointly with Canada and possibly others.
6.
It would probably be undesirable to advance this proposal until Israeli forces have completed their withdrawal and UNEF is further deployed. Also, it would be made clear that the present proposal has no direct application to UNEF itself.
7.
EUR, while concurring in the proposal, is concerned at the possibility of participation in the corps by Soviet satellite states, and also possible proposals for utilization of the corps by the Assembly in situations where it might not be in this country’s interest. It is believed, however, that the overall advantages of the proposal outweigh these possible difficulties, which could be met by appropriate diplomatic leadership in concrete circumstances.

Recommendations:

1. That, subject to clearance with the Defense Department, Ambassador Lodge be authorized to consult with Canada and other principal allies with a view to having the Secretary General, at an appropriate time, circulate for information a memorandum embodying appropriate portions of the attached paper. The tactics, including preliminary consultations, possible concert with Canada, etc. would be worked out with Ambassador Lodge at the time.3

Tab A4

UNITED STATES VIEWS REGARDING POSSIBLE UN CORPS FOR OBSERVATION, PATROL AND RELATED FUNCTIONS

Governing Principles

1.
Standing arrangements should be developed enabling the UN in appropriate circumstances to provide international military personnel to give “on the ground” support to efforts toward the pacific settlement of disputes by the General Assembly (or Security Council), including the patrolling of disputed boundary lines or areas, supervising and maintaining cessation of hostilities, and observing situations which threaten the maintenance of peace and security.
2.
It would be neither a purely “paper” corps on the one hand, nor a large standing force on the other. It might most feasibly take material shape in the form of a UN Corps training center. This might be established within a “neutral” nation, such as India, Sweden, or even Switzerland, possibly by leasing or purchasing an already existing military school facility. Alternatively, it could be located in e.g. Canada, relatively accessible to UN Headquarters. A permanent cadre of UN officers, directly hired or seconded by Member governments, would constitute the permanent party. 75 Member States would be eligible to detail a small number of officers [Page 175] and non-coms for suitable training periods, on a rotational basis. These cadres would return to staff and train elements of company or battalion size within the various national military establishments, such units to be equipped with UN helmets and armbands.
3.
Upon call of the Assembly (or Security Council) various of these trained and earmarked units would be immediately available to carry out UN observation and/or patrol duties, the composition of a particular force to be guided by political and other desiderata.
4.
It would not at this stage include personnel from the five permanent members of the Security Council, nor would the Security Council or Military Staff Committee have any supervisory role.
5.
It would be stationed on the territory of a Member State only with the consent of that State. (This does not imply U.S. acceptance of the doctrine that the consent of a state is legally necessary for the entry of UN forces in any case not covered by Chapter VII of the Charter.)
6.
It would constitute new machinery, not continuation of UNEF as such.
7.
It would not be regarded as a continuation of efforts of the Collective Measures Committee or efforts under Article 43 regarding military forces for enforcement purposes, but rather as an adjunct of pacific settlement machinery under the Charter.
8.
It might be known as “UN Corps for Observation and Patrol” (UNCOP), or possibly “UN Patrol”.

Organization

9.
It would take the form of a new UN instrumentality, under the administrative direction of a Chief of Staff named by the Secretary General with the consent of two-thirds of the Assembly. The corps would establish its own internal organization,TOs, equipment requirements, tactical doctrine, training and orientation curriculum, communications procedures, staff operations, etc. with assistance of experts seconded from Member States as requested, and with the guidance of an advisory committee of governments.
10.
Training and indoctrination would focus on language, inter-unit coordination, observation and patrol techniques, and other special skills essential for a multi-national, non-fighting military body operating under international directives.

Financing

11.
Such a force could be financed either by the participating states, through the UN regular budget, or as a special budget. The US doctrine of logistical support for contributing nations, evolved after the Korean experience suggests that the US might wish to [Page 176] assist financially, and rules out the first alternative. However, such a force would clearly be in the US interest, and we should not leave the full financial burden to the lesser powers. The principle of shared costs should be followed, under the regular assessment scale.
12.
The principal cost would be the acquisition and operation of the training center, and support of the permanent party. When units were actually on UN assignments, the UN would cover all expenses other than basic pay, uniforms and personal gear, including small weapons, which would be supplied by the contributing nations, who would receive appropriate credits against their assessments. The UN would pay a standard allowance to troops on patrol assignment. Where a nation furnished manpower but was unable to finance its equipment, a special working capital fund could be established to supply grants as appropriate. Costs would also include airlift and sealift facilities which countries such as the US could be called upon to furnish in actual operational assignments.

Tab B5

Draft Resolution Prepared in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the contribution which the United Nations Emergency Force has made to the achievement of the purposes of the United Nations Charter in the area to which it has been assigned,

Expressing its appreciation to the Secretary-General, to the Advisory Committee, and to Member States for their cooperation and assistance in the establishment and operation of the force,

Believing that the effectiveness of the United Nations in fulfillment of its Charter responsibilities in the field of pacific settlement of disputes would be enhanced by agreement upon standing arrangements which would facilitate the ready availability and prompt dispatch, if deemed necessary, of military personnel in support of such efforts toward the pacific settlement of disputes as the patrolling of disputed boundary lines or areas, supervising and maintaining the cessation of hostilities, and observing situations which threaten the maintenance of international peace and security,

[Page 177]

Establishes a Committee on United Nations Observation and Patrol, consisting of [ ]6

Requests the Committee to consider, in collaboration with the Secretary General and consultation with Member States as appropriate, the feasibility and possible nature of permanent arrangements to facilitate the ready availability and prompt dispatch of a UN corps for observation, patrol, and related duties, and to report its recommendations to the General Assembly by [ ]

  1. Source: Department of State,IO Files: Lot 60 D 113, United Nations General File, 1957. Confidential. Drafted by Bloomfield.
  2. On January 30, Wilcox sent Lodge a preliminary uncleared draft of a paper proposing a permanent U.N. corps for “observation and patrol”. Lodge replied on February 6 that the atmosphere in the United Nations was not right to discuss the idea of a permanent U.N. corps; however, he recommended that studies of the issue continue. Both letters were attached to the source text.
  3. There is no indication on the source text of any action by the Secretary.
  4. Drafted by Bloomfield.
  5. Drafted by Bloomfield and Vincent Baker of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs.
  6. These and following brackets are in the source text.