320/7–2654
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Chinese Affairs (McConaughy)
- Subject:
- Presidency of UN General Assembly
- Participants:
- Sir Roger Makins, British Ambassador
- Mr. R. H. Scott, British Minister
- The Secretary
- The Under Secretary
- Mr. McConaughy, Director, Office of Chinese Affairs
During the call on the Secretary by Ambassador Makins the following was discussed:
Ambassador Makins said that his Government had been firmly committed for some time to support the candidacy of Van Kleffens of the Netherlands for President of the forthcoming UN General Assembly. It was unusual for his Government to make such a commitment and he did not know the reason. His Government was surprised and rather disturbed to hear quite recently that the U.S. Government intended to support Prince Wan of Thailand. The British had taken it for granted that a European would be elected this year and a South American next year, in geographical rotation. Furthermore his Government thought it was questionable whether it was wise to support a candidate who had been defeated the preceding year, as Prince Wan had been. The Ambassador expressed the hope that we might find it possible to refrain from active campaigning against Van Kleffens or in favor of Prince Wan, assuming that our commitment to Prince Wan was irrevocable.
The Secretary said that perhaps the staff work on this matter had been incomplete. He regretted the apparent lack of understanding with the British as to the course to be pursued. It was a difficult decision as between Van Kleffens and Prince Wan. The Secretary agreed that Van Kleffens was a very good candidate. He was a personal friend of the Secretary’s and the Dutch were a stout people. He said that when [Page 568] the recommendation first came up to him that we endorse the candidacy of Prince Wan, he had postponed a decision. However, it was the unanimous recommendation of the Bureau heads concerned that we support Prince Wan. Prince Wan was also a good candidate and there were various practical reasons for supporting him. The United States Government was not committed to any other candidate. We had regretted the necessity of denying our support to Prince Wan in 1953 when we had voted for Madame Pandit. The Secretary said that so far as he knew there was no rule or tradition of geographic rotation of the presidency.
In response to a question as to whether it might be possible to settle the matter by arranging to support one of the candidates next year, the Secretary said that he was opposed to advance commitments of one year in matters of this sort. An unforeseeable contingency might arise which would make it advisable to support another candidate. It was not wise to tie ones hands so far in advance.
The Secretary said he did not believe the British need feel any embarrassment in supporting Van Kleffens. The United States of course would not raise any objection to British support of a candidate other than the one we were supporting.