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

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

New York, November 28, 1955—noon.

Delga 369. Re membership in Ad Hoc Committee. Unless we should decide to proceed with 17-nation proposal in SC in next day or two, membership item will undoubtedly come up in Ad Hoc Committee about Wednesday. In these circumstances, I would proceed, subject to Department’s views, as follows:

1. Ad Hoc Committee decided its order of items at beginning of session and Indians in South Africa item is scheduled next. However, if as is likely, a move is made to take up membership next instead of the Indian item, I believe we should acquiesce. I am convinced that even if we undertook an active campaign, which I do not believe is desirable, we could not prevent move take membership item next. (Canadian resolution now has 28 co-sponsors and with the support of the Soviet Bloc we would be unable to prevent membership coming up next.) Moreover, ad hoc consideration would give us a little more time to try to convince Taipei to change its position—which I continue to believe is absolutely essential if this whole membership question is not to have the most serious repercussions on the US, the Chinese Nationalists and our relationships with the free world in general.

2. I would vote in favor of the Canadian resolution. It requests the SC to consider all pending applications for membership other than the divided states. It is not unlike last year’s resolution referring pending applications to the SC which we voted for and which was adopted by the Assembly unanimously. I would make clear in my statement, however, that our vote in favor of the Canadian resolution should not be construed as endorsing any specified number of applicants. If we can get a few others to take similar line, it would help somewhat to keep the question open as to 17 or 18.

3. I do not believe it is possible to defeat the Soviet amendment, even if we oppose it as a whole on the grounds that it is a package (rather than on a country-by-country vote). Most of the 28 co-sponsors of the Canadian resolution interpret it as meaning 18 and are likely therefore to support the Soviet amendment. In these circumstances, I believe we should:

Acquiesce in a country-by-country vote on Soviet amendment if it seems inevitable that one will be had; and in that case vote in favor of our 13, abstain on their 4, and vote against Outer Mongolia;

Abstain on the amendment as whole (even if Outer Mongolia gets majority as we expect).

The Soviet amendment would be adopted by a substantial majority, I believe, and this would undoubtedly have the effect of Assembly pressure on the SC for 18. This nevertheless I believe reflects the Assembly’s view on this matter. I believe that if we voted in the negative in vote on the Soviet amendment as a whole, it would be interpreted by the LA’s as a vote against Spain and Italy and by the Afro-Asians as a vote against the Bandung list.

4. Department will have noted also that a final operative paragraph of Canadian resolution requests the SC make its report during present session. I expect that there will be great pressure to complete consideration of this item in the ad hoc committee as quickly as possible in order to give Council opportunity to take early action and report back at present Assembly. In event Council action then delayed or is negative, we may be confronted with resumed Tenth Session or a special session (possibly in January) limited to Assembly consideration of the SC report on membership. Since moratorium on Chinese representation expires on December 31 of this year, we would be confronted with this problem at such session.

All of this points up clearly how absolutely essential it is for us to continue our efforts to change the Chinese position on Outer Mongolia.

Lodge

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 310.2/11–2855. Secret; Niact.