247. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, November 16, 19601
SUBJECT
- Long Range Possibilities for UN Reorganization
PARTICIPANTS
- Ambassador Manlio Brosio, Italian Embassy
- Minister Carlo Perrone-Capano, Italian Embassy
- The Under Secretary for Political Affairs
- Mr. Robert H. McBride—WE
- Mr. Hugh G. Appling—M
- Mr. Samuel W. Lewis—WE
Ambassador Brosio called on Mr. Merchant for a general exchange of views on current world problems. The discussion centered on the broad question of the present and future organizational structure of the United Nations, a problem which the Ambassador believed could become acute in the near future. Stressing that he was speaking personally rather than expressing the official views of his government, Ambassador Brosio pointed to the chaotic developments in the current General Assembly session concerning the Congo and to the very real danger that Portugal, Belgium, or France might decide to withdraw from active UN participation in anger over General Assembly handling of their respective colonial and Algerian problems. He questioned whether in fact the West can sit by and watch a further deterioration in the behavior of the General Assembly and the increasing [Page 444] domination of the Assembly by the Afro-Asian delegations. The Ambassador wished to inform his government whether the US was thinking seriously about this long range problem or was currently studying possible courses of action.
Mr. Merchant replied that many individuals in the Department had been concerned over some of the developments to which the Ambassador alluded. While we have for some time taken the position that it is premature to amend the UN Charter, there is no question that the general character of the United Nations has been altered substantially by the addition of so many new members. Mr. Merchant expressed his personal view that serious consideration should be given to finding ways in which the trend initiated in 1950 and 1951 to emphasize the General Assembly at the expense of the Security Council might be reversed. However, Mr. Merchant said, it is too early to give up hope that the General Assembly may become a more useful and stable organ after the new African leaders acquire experience in UN procedures and Nigeria and the new French community states begin to exercise a stabilizing influence on some other African nations. While admitting that the current General Assembly was the most disorderly in fifteen years, partly as a result of Khrushchev’s behavior, Mr. Merchant did not think a continued deterioration of the Assembly’s usefulness can yet be accepted as being inevitable.
Mr. Merchant continued that, while we are studying and thinking seriously about the long range problem, we have only two reasonably concrete ideas at this time. We are convinced that the various subsidiary UN organs should be enlarged to give greater representation to the Afro-Asian bloc. We do not, however, believe this principle should necessarily extend to the Security Council for which we are convinced different treatment will be required. We have not yet decided what should be done about Security Council enlargement but we would almost certainly oppose extension of the veto power to additional permanent members. Mr. Merchant pointed out that any broader recommendations concerning UN reorganization would of necessity have to await consideration by the new President and new Secretary of State.
Ambassador Brosio then returned to the question of the Security Council to present with considerable vigor his personal view that it would be wise not to rule out enlargement of that organ. He saw no real objection to a larger Security Council, even one with additional permanent members. The Ambassador thought in fact that enlargement is the only real means of reversing the present trend toward downgrading the importance of the Security Council in favor of the General Assembly. The Ambassador fears that majority rule in a General Assembly increasingly coming under the domination of the Afro-Asian bloc may very soon become a serious danger to Western interests. [Page 445] At present, the USSR still opposes the concept of majority rule and insists on unanimity for UN actions. Therefore, it could well be possible in the near future to obtain Soviet agreement to enlargement of the Security Council, an organ which depends under the Charter on unanimity for effective action rather than on a majority vote. However, when and if the Soviet Union believes itself close to gaining a working majority in the General Assembly, it would probably abandon its insistence on the principle of unanimity and oppose any changes intended to strengthen the Security Council. Since any enlargement of the Security Council would require a change in the UN Charter, it is essential that the West propose such a change while there is still reason to believe Soviet support would be forthcoming. Once the Security Council were enlarged to become more representative, it would automatically reacquire some of the prestige and influence lost to the General Assembly. Major problems could then be handled by the UN organ in which the West’s interests are protected by the veto.
Ambassador Brosio asked what technique Mr. Merchant was thinking of to reverse the trend in favor of the General Assembly. Mr. Merchant replied that it might be possible to reemphasize the Security Council merely by the West’s deliberately refraining from taking questions to the Assembly, and by our mobilizing votes to block the efforts of others to do so under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution.2 Ambassador Brosio doubted that this would be sufficient to reverse the trend now that it is well started. He found it hard to believe that the principle of enlarging the UN’s subsidiary organs, once adopted, would not soon be extended to include the Security Council. Since he was convinced Security Council enlargement would inevitably take place, he thought it wise to direct our thinking in that direction now as perhaps the only feasible means of reducing the dangerous trend toward General Assembly domination.
Ambassador Brosio said in response to a question that he did not rule out the possibility of Portugal’s withdrawing from the UN or at least from active participation in UN affairs; nor could one exclude France’s taking similar action. It was for this reason that he considers the problem of UN reorganization a vital one which may become extremely urgent if the Portuguese or French suffer crushing defeats at this Assembly session.
Mr. Merchant expressed his appreciation for having Ambassador Brosio’s views. He assured the Ambassador that we were concerned over this whole problem and would continue to study it actively.