Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 1

501.BC/8–648

Memorandum by the Acting Chief of the Division of South Asian Affairs (Mathews) to the Deputy Director of the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs (Hare)

confidential

[Washington,] August 6, 1948.

In deciding which nation the United States should support to occupy the non-permanent membership on the Security Council being vacated by Syria, SOA would like to invite the attention of NEA to the following reasons why, in its opinion, India should be chosen as the US candidate:

1. The United States supported India last year against the Russian-supported Ukraine. Although this support evoked a strong favorable reaction in India and contiguous countries at the time, there were elements in India, less friendly to the United States, which contended that the United States was not supporting India out of sympathy for India but as a result of power politics and opposition to a Russian satellite. To fail to support an actively-campaigning India this year could not but give credence to these charges and instigate a series of attacks on “American lack of principles” among the ever-ready Indian press.

2. The Government of India has repeatedly solicited the support of the United States for this seat. It is apparent that India is not only anxious to become a member of the Security Council but that failure on our part to support India’s candidacy would be detrimental to Indo-U.S. relations.

3. If the US were to support a country which could be classified as an American satellite or dependent, it is probable that Russia would favor the Indian candidacy. Should Russia support this candidacy and the U.S. oppose it, a pro-Russian alteration might well occur in India’s already insufficiently clear attitude toward the Western-Russian ideological conflict. Such an alteration would seriously impede the achievement of the fundamental U.S. political objectives with respect to India which have been stated as being: “the orientation of the government and peoples of India toward the United States and other western democracies, and away from the USSR … and the progressive development of responsible democratic political institutions in India”.

4. From every standpoint of geographic location, population, resources, and physical size India is preeminently qualified to be a member of the Security Council of the United Nations. Thus, it would certainly not be inappropriate for India to be elected to one of the non-permanent seats at this time—or for the United States to be one of the Great Powers supporting India. In this connection it should be borne in mind that China is already pledged to India and that it would be difficult to imagine that the British will not favor India over all other candidates.

5. Should the United States support any nation other than India for this position, and should that other nation be elected, damaging weight would be added to the already-current charge throughout the South Asian area that neither the United States nor the United Nations has a realistic appreciation of the importance of South Asia or of the worthiness of its claim to play a meaningful role in international organizations.