Submission CANBERRA, 3 September 1946

ELECTIONS TO THE ECONOMIC & SOCIAL COUNCIL

Elections for six of the eighteen positions on the Economic and
Social Council will take place at the forthcoming meeting of the
General Assembly of the United Nations. Those nations retiring are
Greece, Lebanon, Ukraine, U.S.A., Colombia, and Yugo-Slavia. They
are all eligible for re-election.

2. At the time of the first election to the Council, New Zealand
withdrew in favour of Yugo-Slavia after a deadlock in the
Assembly. As a result she was more or less promised the support of
at least the United Kingdom, and U.S.A., as well as Australia, at
the next elections. It can therefore be assumed that New Zealand
is likely to be in a good position to secure selection, possibly
in place of Greece. The re-election of the United States seems
certain, and is, of course, essential to the sound working of the
Council. The Dominions Office has advised the Australian
Government that Egypt has arranged to receive the support of the
Arab States for the Council as she will retire from the Security
Council at the end of the year. That country will, therefore,
probably replace Lebanon. Colombia seems certain either to be re-
elected or to be replaced by one of the Latin American Republics.

3. This leaves the positions of the Ukraine and Yugo-Slavia
unresolved. It would seem improbable that the Slav states would
drop one of their representatives on the Council in favour of
Australia. Moreover, there are several other considerations to be
borne in mind:-

(a) It is more than likely that the candidature of Australia for
the Council would detract from the vote obtained by New Zealand,
whom we should support, especially after her attitude towards our
election to the Security Council. [1] It is possible that vote-
splitting would lead to the election of neither.

(b) The election of Australia and New Zealand to the Council in
1946 would lead to United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, India and
New Zealand all being on the Council at the same time, which may
well not be practicable despite the independent status of member
nations of the Commonwealth. Moreover, if a British Commonwealth
member is to be elected in addition to New Zealand, South Africa
may well feel that we have had our share of key United Nations
positions, while she has so far had none. However, our right to
election to the Council as a result of our work at San Francisco
on the economic aspects of the Charter give us much more right to
election than that country, or many others for that matter.

(c) There is no doubt that the policies that New Zealand would
represent on the Council would be mainly those that Australia
would herself sponsor, and the close consultation that is
maintained between the two countries would enable us to keep in
touch with the working of the Council.

4. So far as British Commonwealth representation is concerned,
somewhat the same position is likely to arise at the 1947
elections. The Soviet Union and the United Kingdom are two of the
six members due to retire, and they are both certain of re-
election. The other four are India, Norway, Cuba and
Czechoslovakia. India has been doing good work in the Chair of the
Council, and will in all probability be anxious for reelection. Of
the others, only Norway seems vulnerable, although the other two
may be replaced by countries representative of their particular
area. However, unless British Commonwealth preponderance makes it
impracticable, Australia may well be able to secure a place on the
Council, instead of Norway, unless the admission of Sweden,
Iceland, Denmark and Finland to the United Nations by then makes
the possibility of a permanent Scandinavian representative likely.

Scandinavian contributions to the economic and social field are by
no means small.

5. Failing election in 1947, the replacement of Canada by
Australia in the 1948 elections seems practicable and justified:-

(a) By this time it is likely that Canada will be a member of the
Security Council, and may therefore be prepared to let Australia
carry on her work for the United Nations in the Economic and
Social Council.

(b) The Australian Delegation in New York has also suggested that
this may be the year when the challenging of the principle of the
continuing representation of the Big Five on the Council might be
successful. The permanent presence of United Kingdom, U.S.A., and
the U.S.S.R. is desirable in view of the international economic
importance of each, but the claims of France and China, in that
order, a-re not so clear.

6. In view of the forthcoming meeting of the third session of the
Economic and Social Council prior to 23rd September your
directions are requested. [2]