UNP files, lot 59 D 237, “Slates”

Memorandum by the Deputy Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs (Bond) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Wainhouse)

secret
  • Subject:
  • United States Position on Election of Soviet Candidates to the Advisory Committee and Committee on Contributions

You have asked for our comments on the attached memorandum from Mr. Barbour, dated September 10, 1954.1 In this memorandum, Mr. Barbour expressed the belief that “we should vote in favor of a suitable Soviet candidate” for the Advisory Committee and the Committee on Contributions if China does not put forward a candidate.

We have just learned that China has proposed a Chinese national for the Advisory Committee, and we will, of course, support his election. The only case in question, therefore, is the Contributions Committee.

OIA believes, and we agree, that the reasons in EUB’s memorandum for supporting a Soviet national for the Contributions Committee are sound. However, you will recall that on June 7 of this year, after EUR raised the question of our position on Soviet bloc candidates for the ECOSOC functional Commissions, we sent a memorandum to Mr. Key, a copy of which is attached.2 In this memorandum we reviewed the background on this whole problem and concluded “that it may be said that current Department policy is against voting for a Soviet bloc candidate for any post, although whether we campaign and vote against a particular candidate or abstain must depend upon the circumstances of each case.” We understand that Mr. Key concurred in this and discussed the matter with Mr. Barbour, who agreed to continue the policy as we described it. We are not aware of any policy to examine cases on an ad hoc basis to determine whether we should vote for a Soviet bloc candidate. Therefore, while we agree that there are valid reasons for voting for a Soviet candidate for the Contributions Committee, provided the U.S.S.R. nominates a more suitable candidate than Mr. Saksin, this would be contrary to what we understand to be our overall policy on the election of Soviet bloc candidates.

  1. Not attached.
  2. Dated June 7, 1954, p. 544.