82. Memorandum From the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Coerr) to Secretary of State Rusk0

SUBJECT

  • Suggestion that we support Miro Cardona, President of the Cuban Revolutionary Council, at the UN

Discussion

The above suggestion has been made with a view to gaining publicity favorable to the Cuban Revolutionary Council and to blunting the attack that Cuban Foreign Minister Raul Roa is expected to make against the United States in the UNGA.

[Page 190]

Although the basic UN concept is that the UN is an organization of states, UNGA procedures would permit a hearing of Miro Cardona by Committee One if proposed by a member of that committee and approved by its majority vote. Most nations, however, including the Europeans and the Afro-Asians—and very probably the Latin Americans—would almost certainly fear the precedent of giving a hearing to a minority dissident group and many could be expected to vote against the proposal. The Soviet bloc and extreme neutralist group would probably oppose. While Committee Four has heard individual petitioners under specific Charter provisions, Committee One has heard non-governmental persons only rarely. We would face almost certain defeat if we were to support a hearing for Miro Cardona.

The United States has privately opposed the hearing of representatives of the FLN in connection with the Algerian question; and soon will again oppose a hearing for North Korean representatives, in Committee One. U.S. support for a hearing of Mir# Cardona might well weaken our position on this kind of an issue.

Recommendation

That we do not support a hearing for Miro Cardona. (Should you approve this recommendation we will support other means of doing it.)1

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 737.00/4-561. Confidential. Drafted by Coerr and by William I. Cargo, Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs. Cleared in substance by Cleveland in IO.
  2. The source text is stamped to indicate that Rusk initialed his approval on April 4. April 5, the date typed in the heading of the document, is probably the date on which Rusk received and approved the recommendation in the memorandum.