Office of the Historian

76. Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State1

New York, May 26, 1959—6 p.m.

1056. Re: Hungary.

1.
As we are approaching time for preparation of GA position papers, I reiterate my suggestion in USUN 646, February 102 that Department consider res for next GA recommending Member States not elect Hungary to UN bodies nor approve allocation of UN funds for expenditure in Hungary, unless summit conference introduces factors not now evident. Draft paragraphs that might accomplish this are set forth at end this telegram.
2.
My doubts about desirability and feasibility rejecting credentials remain same as expressed reftel and when we were considering this possibility last fall. Potential repercussions in ChiRep issue, and reluctance many nations, including large number LA’s, make success dubious and are not outweighed by advantages which in any case would be slight. Any new action against Hungary should also be considered in light Berlin and overriding importance of not endangering possibility broad UN support for our position there.
3.
Article 5 of Charter3 is biggest bar to any UN sanction against Hungary for failing to cooperate with UN, but formula of recommending that each “Member State” act individually on elections and funds, rather than to seek to “suspend” any rights or privileges on a general basis, offers a way.
4.
Department may also want to study effect refusing to allocate funds. This may involve considerable difficulties where refugees or relief or possibly UNICEF are concerned, but stopping expenditure of funds is one of the most effective actions we can take, providing we make clear this action directed against Hungary Government, not people. In order to forestall complaints that to stop funds is hard-hearted, US could help through Red Cross if necessary.
5.
Attempt to prevent both election to UN bodies and allocation of funds may also be more than traffic can bear. We would have to assess this after consultation with others. We would probably have a drop in neutralist support for res such as this, and might find some, such as India, even voting against it. If, as seems likely, something has to be dropped, “allocation of funds” idea would probably be one to eliminate, as it would be more likely to attract strong opposition.
6.
Draft key operative paragraphs might read:

“Recommends to Member States, in the light of the continued refusal of the Hungarian authorities to heed GA resolutions, or to cooperate with the UN and its reps, that they refrain from electing or appointing Hungary or its reps to any offices, councils, commissions, or other elective organs of the UN and the UN specialized agencies,

“Recommends further to Member States that they oppose allocation by any UN organ or by any specialized agency of funds to the present Hungarian regime; and

“Requests the SYG to bring this res to the attention of all UN organs on the occasion of elections, appointments, or allocation of funds, and to communicate it to the UN specialized agencies for the same purpose.”

7.
If Department approves some plan of this kind, suggest I be authorized to take into my confidence in advance of policy announcement leaders in the fight in the US for a free Hungary, such as C.D. Jackson, Arthur Goldsmith, etc.
Lodge
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 310.2/5–2659. Secret; Limited Distribution.↩
  2. Document 62.↩
  3. See footnote 5, Document 16.↩