Memorandum by John A. Costello¹
'Membership of and participation in UN'

More than ten years have passed since we made application for membership of UN. That application was agreed to at least nine times in the Security Council and it was not until December, last, that we were finally admitted. Meanwhile, we had used the fact that we were not members as an excuse often times, for not accepting the responsibility in regard to certain phases of world affairs on which, if we had taken an attitude we might have incurred a measure of reproach from one side of the argument or the other.

Indeed, our statesmen had on many occasions complained that we were debarred from playing ‘our full part’ in international affairs because of our non-membership of the United Nations. So frequent indeed in the past were these complaints that they implied that given membership we would be willing to do more than the average member in justification of our place in the international council. We had indeed arrogated to ourselves by implication a place of moral superiority and had indicated that we would to some extent be the place of a bellwether to other small nations. Indeed our protestations have been of such a character that it has led American opinion to believe that we shall have a commanding and important part in guiding the opinions of the recently free nations of the world who have become members of United Nations along with us.

Hopes have therefore been raised that having accepted membership we shall occupy a large and responsible place in the Councils of the organization. These hopes would be dashed, if because of failure to staff adequately, the Delegation appointed to the UN we should disappoint the hopes that have been placed in us. In that connection, it might be well to advert to the situation which obtained in our representation at the League of Nations in Geneva.² It will be remembered that our post at the League of Nations was notoriously understaffed and those of us who remember the conditions at Geneva will remember also that we were to some extent a by word for our parsimonious attitude in regard to staffing. Our staff consisted of the delegate to the organization and a secretary of a low rank. Consequently it was impossible for the office to keep abreast of developments in the various fields in which the League functioned. It was also consequently that when our delegations arrived for [the] general assembly they had to obtain their briefings from friendly members of the staff of the various committees because the office staff itself was not equipped to offer briefing except on the broadest aspects of policy. It was obviously impossible for the representative and his meagre staff to have detailed information available on the activities of the various committees and this was a lack which was sometimes grievously felt. Let us hope that it will not be necessary to have the same sort of establishment set up at United Nations as was in being with the League of Nations. Attention must be paid to this aspect of the matter from the very beginning. The United Nations has five general committees on which we shall be expected to have membership in one form or another. First comes the Security Council. Second, the Economic and Social Council. Third, the Trusteeship Council. Fourth, the Disarmament Commission and then comes the Peace Observation Committee. In addition to these there are the Collective Measures Committee, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, Committee on Contributions, and a host of sub-committees stemming from the principal committees. We must not forget either that there are a number of specialized agencies which form part of UN on which we are separately represented such as the International Labor Organisation, the World Health Organization, The Food and Agriculture Organization and the Tele-communications Union. To these must be added an organization which will take priority over other activities for a few years to come. The world atomic energy organization will be undoubtedly one of the specialized agencies of the UN. It is not yet in being but a meeting to create it will be held in New York about September or October next. The preliminary meetings are at present taking place in Washington. We may expect to be nominated to the governing body of that organization when it comes into being. Hints to that effect have already been given to us by the State Department. Again, it appears to be taken for granted that we should be one of the principal countries to represent what might be called the recipient bloc. The recipient countries are, as well could be understood, those which have little mineral or industrial resources of their own.

With these considerations in mind the question of staffing should be approached. In discussions with the Secretary General of UN it was indicated that the Secretary General hoped that our staffing would be on the basis of a permanent representative holding the rank of Ambassador. In addition to that principal post the Secretary General indicated that he would consider it wise to have the second post not lower than the rank of Counsellor, with additional posts as we ourselves thought best. For effective purposes the proper and adequate staffing should be of the following character:

The cost of this staff will be considerable as will be readily recognized. A quick and rough estimate would lead me to believe that the cost will not be less than $100,000 a year or approximately £35,000 per annum. This is exclusive of the cost of office promises which may well be in the neighborhood of $15,000 a year or an additional £5,000. If we consider also that the fees incumbent on the membership of the United Nations will amount in our case to approximately £46,000 per year we shall see that the total cost will be a little less than £90,000 per year. It may well be said that the cost may be too great for the advantage received but if we are to continue to pride ourselves on accepting the moral responsibility of our place of leadership then we must be prepared to accept also the financial obligations inherent therein. This will be the case which the Prime Minister will have to make to Parliament and to the country but there is no doubt that he will have substantial backing not only from those of the people who believe that the country’s place is in the forefront on moral and religious questions but also from religious organizations who undoubtedly will desire to have a firm supporter of Vatican policy always present in the Councils of the United Nations.