Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II

67. Letter From the Representative at the United Nations (Lodge) to the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Wilcox)¹

New York, February 26, 1959.

Dear Francis: This is in reply to your letter of January 22 with enclosure,² concerning the admission of new members to the United Nations.

I agree that there is no practicable way to slow down or limit the admission of new members. Indeed, I do not think that the admission of new members is necessarily a bad thing for us. In fact we can make it into an advantage.

I do not agree that it will be increasingly difficult to use the General Assembly in situations which can be described as “cold war”. The way in which the debate is conducted will undoubtedly change as the membership changes, but it is changing all the time anyway, with the changing course of events, and I believe that the increase of membership will increase the value of the United Nations as a forum for him who has the wit to use it.

I agree that we will be under increasing pressure from uncommitted countries to show a so-called “flexible” attitude toward the Soviet Union. But, as you know very well, it is possible to be completely firm in fact and yet not inflexible in appearance.

I do not agree that as the membership grows the atmosphere in the United Nations will become more favorable to the Soviet Union. To be sure, the United States cannot afford to look stuffy or pro-colonialist, or stick-in-the-mud. The United States has got to be for peaceful change, and it must look as though it is for peaceful change. If such is our attitude, we have nothing to fear.

Nor do I agree that so-called “colonial questions” will be increasingly difficult to deal with. They could not be any more difficult than they have been. We shall undoubtedly have to take a line that is more evolutionary and consequently less pro-Europe than it was, but it will be just as painful as always—no more and no less. I reiterate that whenever a country absents itself from the debate the way France did on Algeria last year, we should jump at the opportunity which it gives us to abstain on the entire question.

I agree that we should be prepared in the future to see that the United Nations takes no action on important questions rather than compromise on matters of principle in order to achieve a ⅔ vote. The idea that the United Nations must “resolute” on everything has always seemed to me very naive. God knows what would happen in Congress if Congress felt they had to pass a bill on every single matter that comes up.

I always stress the fact that resolutions of the United Nations are purely recommendatory and hortatory. There are very few cases in my service here where a General Assembly resolution has constituted an “over-riding moral obligation”. Our condemnation of the Soviet Union on Hungary by a vote of 60 to 10 was certainly such an action, but usually they are recommendations which we can take or which we can leave, and I quite agree that we may ourselves at some future time be faced with resolutions which we do not intend to carry out.

Sincerely yours,

H.C. Lodge

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 310/2–2659. Secret.
2. A copy of Wilcox’s letter to Lodge is ibid., IO Files: Lot 61 D 91, Correspondence—Ambassador Lodge. Regarding the attachment, see footnote 1, infra.