This memorandum deals with Canadian representation in the various councils, bodies and agencies of the United Nations and concludes with recommendations concerning future Canadian membership in the main councils of the organization. It is being submitted at this time because our Permanent Representative in New York has informed us in telegram No. 157 of March 2? (copy attached) that the Australian Prime Minister and his party probably will wish to discuss the question of Australia's election to the Security Council for 1956-57 when they visit Ottawa next week.

The attached statistical review? shows that Canada now holds fewer offices in the United Nations than at any time since 1946. Modification of chart totals to provide special weighting for the presidency of the General Assembly and membership in the Security Council and ECOSOC on the basis of the first two contributing five additional points and ECOSOC four, produces the following results:

A "box-score" based on membership of Canada and a number of other countries on the Security Council, ECOSOC and Trusteeship Council, adjusted on the basis of five points for the Security Council and four for ECOSOC and the Trusteeship Council, produced the following totals up to 1956:

The significance of the foregoing figures is, of course, modified by the growing importance of the General Assembly and the increasing of the subsidiary bodies of the Assembly, including the Collective Measures Committee, the Disarmament Commission and its Sub-Committee, and the Advisory Committee established to assist the Secretary-General in preparing for the International Atomic Energy Conference. Membership in one or more of the main councils remains highly desirable, however, for reasons of prestige, influence in deciding important issues and facilities for obtaining information.

Following are observations and recommendations concerning them:

Observations

1. Security Council

Although the Security Council has declined in importance over the years, there is no doubt that it is still a body of considerable prestige. New Zealand's term of office on the Security Council will expire at the end of 1955. As it is unlikely that the Union of South Africa will wish to stand for election, a second round of Commonwealth representation is due to begin in 1956. The sequence of the first round was:

In connection with Australia's intention for 1956-57, Mr. Johnson reported from New York (Letter No. 50 of January 21,? copy attached):

"It is perhaps indicative of Australian views that when Sir Leslie Munro, Mr. Forsyth and I were waiting to see Mr. Hammarskjold a few days ago, Sir Leslie suggested to Mr. Forsyth that Australia should now begin its campaign for election to the Security Council in succession to New Zealand. Mr. Forsyth agreed with Sir Leslie Munro and said that he was urging this course upon his Government. The difficulty they both feared was not the candidature of Canada but that of India. They both assumed that as between Canada and Australia, it was Australia's turn. They were both afraid, however, that India, which only reluctantly agreed to support New Zealand two years ago, might make another bid for the Commonwealth seat."

In the same letter Mr. Johnson said that the Australian Delegation in New York seemed confident that Canada would not contest its right of succession to the Commonwealth seat for 1956-57. This confidence might have been based on a conservation between you and Sir Alan Watt - at that time Under-Secretary for External Affairs in Australia - in 1953, in which you indicated provisionally that Canada would not be inclined to anticipate its regular turn on the Security Council. (A copy of a memorandum? concerning your conversation with Sir Alan is attached.)

Upholding Australia's right of succession to the Commonwealth seat for 1956-57 is the probability that disputing of it by Canada would encourage India to denounce the rotational principle for the Commonwealth seat on the ground that Asia is under-represented in the Security Council. If India decided to enter a claim for the Commonwealth seat for[el]1956-57, Canada would be faced with a problem similar to that which developed in 1953 when it appeared that India might contest New Zealand's right of succession. At that time, we planned to support New Zealand, while informing India that we sympathized with the need for a more equitable geographical representation and would react favourably at a Charter Review Conference to a proposal for an additional seat for Asia. In view of our interest in maintaining the rotational principle for the Commonwealth seat, a similar policy would appear applicable if India decided to contest Australia's right of succession. Expansion of the Security Council to provide an additional permanent seat for Asia is considered feasible by the Department's Charter Review Working Group. The Soviet bloc might find it embarrassing to resist such a proposal.

2. Economic and Social Council

Commonwealth representation in ECOSOC is shown in the following table:

You will note that by the end of 1955, Canada, Australia and Pakistan will have served two three-year terms each, India will have served three three-year terms, and New Zealand one three-year term. Since Canada ended its second three-year term in 1952 and since the other Commonwealth countries concerned, except New Zealand, have served since then, it would appear legitimate for Canada to seek election for a third three-year term starting in 1956. The fact that Australia's second three-year term ends this year should facilitate Canada's re-election. It is possible that New Zealand also may wish to re-enter ECOSOC in 1956, but its candidature should not raise any difficulty unless India sought immediate re-election for a fourth term in 1956. Pakistan's second three-year term will end in 1956, and it would appear reasonable to expect India to be content to wait for one year before seeking re-election.

3. Trusteeship Council

Canada never has been represented on the Trusteeship Council and there seems to be little inducement to seek election there as it appears evident that we are able to play a more useful and constructive role in trusteeship matters while sitting on the sidelines and attempting to mediate and reconcile differences between the opposing blocs. Canada has no direct interest in trusteeship and colonial activities, and experience has shown that there is little to be gained from active participation in these controversial fields. Furthermore, we have too little knowledge of and experience in this field to make a useful contribution without devoting more labour to it than is at present available. Recommendations

On the basis of the foregoing, I should like to recommend:

1. If, as seems almost certain, Australian seeks election to the Security Council in 1956-57, Canada should support its candidature. ¹¹

2. If both Australia and India seek the Commonwealth seat for 1956-57, Canada would be justified in supporting Australia to preserve the rotational principle on which our own prospects for a seat in 1958-59 depend. Canada should, however, inform India of its sympathy with the need for more equitable geographical representation, and indicate the likelihood of Canadian support at a Charter Review Conference for a proposal to provide an additional seat on the Security Council for Asia. ¹² (It would be advantageous in some respects to avoid giving the Australians a definite commitment on this point at present in view of our uncertainty of India's plans. On the other hand, a definite "prior" commitment to Australia at this time might save us embarrassment if India later requested our support. On balance, a fairly firm commitment to Australia at this time would appear desirable.) ¹³

3. Canada should plan to seek election to the Security Council for 1958-59.¹⁴

4. Canada should seek election to the Economic and Social Council for 1956-57-58. ¹⁵

5. Canada should continue to refrain from seeking election to the Trusteeship Council. ¹⁶

Your views would be appreciated.

J. L[ÉGER]