Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume XI

114. Letter From the Representative at the United Nations (Lodge) to the Secretary of State¹

New York, July 29, 1955.

Dear Foster: There seems to be a good chance to get the British to agree to your great idea of non-member participation. If they do agree, it means that we will have the votes to put it across in the General Assembly this Fall. If we put it across, it will broaden and change the character of the United Nations in the way that you always advocated and the publicity and photographs coming out of the United Nations will reflect the presence of Japan, Italy, Germany, etc., even though they cannot vote. The fact that these countries, and others such as Ireland, will be present will be very helpful in the light of 1956.

My basis for thinking that the British may go along is due to their acute discomfort over our plans for Charter review. They really do not want this at all and Crosthwaite, the British Minister in New York, has suggested a resolution which puts off the holding of a review conference to which he invites our adherence. I told him that his resolution was a very milk and water affair and that Americans wanted to see some signs of development and growth in the United Nations.

1. I think that if you were to put it strongly to Macmillan, a deal might be made whereby the United States and the United Kingdom would agree to a resolution postponing a Charter review conference and another resolution putting into effect your scheme of non-member participation. The two would go together as a single package.

2. I recommend further that the State Department staff be instructed to get to work on the text of a resolution concerning non-member participation, the text of an explanatory statement, and the text of a position paper. Nothing has yet been done along this line.

I realize that you have other things to take up with the British which relate to the United Nations—in particular, the question of the successor to the Turkey seat in the Security Council, the perennial question of Chinese representation, and the Cyprus issue.

The non-member participation plan, however, is to me particularly interesting and constructive.²

Faithfully yours,

Cabot L.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 310.2/7–2955. Confidential; Personal.
2. In a memorandum of August 3 to Barco, Armour wrote that in talking to several officials and in reading a memorandum of conversation in which Secretary Dulles took part, he gained the impression “that following the Four-Power Conference there appears to be hope on the part of some satellites of some advance toward a liberation of Soviet control. In view of this trend, I doubt that the Department will be anxious to agree to any package deal which involves the satellites presently not represented in the United Nations, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, as their presence there would tend to strengthen their present governments.” Given these facts and the assurance that the Soviets would not accept any “package deal” on membership that did not include at least some of these countries, Armour suggested dropping the push for membership expansion in favor of proposals for some form of non-member participation in the United Nations. (USUN Files, IO, Membership)