Confidential report from Frederick H. Boland to Seán Murphy (Dublin)¹
(Confidential) (Copy)

I have the honour to report as follows the circumstances in which I took the action in regard to the Hungarian question referred to in my telegram of Sunday, the 28th October.²

The evening papers of Saturday, the 27th, reported that the Chargé d’Affaires of the Spanish Permanent Mission here had called on the Secretary-General at noon that day, had protested against the intervention of Soviet troops in Hungary and Poland, but had not made any suggestion as to what the United Nations should do – a matter which, the reports said, he left ‘in the hands of the Secretary-General’. An hour and a half later, the Secretary-General received a letter from the Permanent Representatives of France, Britain and the United States calling for urgent consideration by the Security Council of the action of ‘foreign military forces’ in ‘violently repressing the rights of the Hungarian People’. Although handed to the Secretary-General, the letter was addressed to the President of the Security Council.

The action of the Three Powers was not inspired or influenced in any way by the earlier Spanish démarche. It was already under consideration before the Spaniards took action. There appears to have been some division of opinion about its expediency. The French are said to have feared that an intervention on the part of the Western Powers would prejudice the chances of a favourable outcome of the rising in Hungary. The Americans, on the other hand, are said to have apprehended that the Hungarian insurgents would succeed in setting up a provisional government in Western Hungary and would present the US Government with a request for de facto recognition which could not be granted without serious diplomatic complications. They strongly favoured referring the whole situation to the Security Council as affording a convenient ‘get-out’ if any such eventuality should arise. Whatever may be the truth about these rumoured hesitations and motives, there was no lack of vigour in the speeches of the representatives of the Three Powers when the Security Council met at 4 p.m. on Sunday to consider their letter.

When I got down to the UN building shortly before the Council met, I found a distinct tendency to criticise the Spanish initiative. The general criticism was that the action of the Spanish government tended to reduce the Hungarian question to the familiar type of clash between Russia and the principal anti-Communist powers whereas, from the point of view of influencing opinion in the uncommitted, ‘anti-colonial’ countries and thus winning worldwide sympathy and support for the Hungarian insurgents, it was important to keep the matter on the highest possible UN plane. Shortly afterwards, I heard, however, that the Italian representative had informed the Secretary-General by letter that his government desired to associate itself with the action of the Three Powers, and a little later it was announced that Turkey had taken or intended to take similar action. I gathered, moving through the lobby, that other representatives, including those of Austria and Canada, were consulting their governments with a view to taking action on the same lines.

As it was late on Sunday afternoon and there was no possibility of consulting you by telephone or telegram in the time available, I had to envisage the embarrassment in which the Minister might find himself – particularly after his speech to the Rotary Club on the 22nd October – if today’s Dublin morning papers were to report that the action of the Three Powers had been specifically endorsed by Spain, Italy and Austria and no mention were made of any action by Ireland. In the circumstances, I felt that, in view of his general policy, the Minister would wish me to act on my own initiative and associate Ireland formally with the Three Power proposal. Accordingly, I saw the Secretary-General at 7.30 p.m. and told him that I was instructed to let him know that the Three Power proposal had the full support and sympathy of the Irish government. He took note of the fact and asked me to confirm my communication in writing as soon as possible so that it could be circulated. At 8.30 p.m. I handed him a letter of which the following is the text:-

Shortly afterwards, Ambassador Lodge of the US came up to me and told me he was delighted we had taken action. He told me that one of the main purposes of the Three Power proposal was to give hope and encouragement to the people behind the Iron Curtain who were disposed to rise against Soviet Russian domination and to show them they were not forgotten. The more countries associated themselves with the proposal, the greater its moral effect in this direction would be. Sir Pierson Dixon of Great Britain spoke to me in the same sense. He added the comment that the more the Three Power initiative could be ‘ballooned’, the better the chances the Hungarians would have of getting a favourable settlement in their current negotiations with the Russians.

When the Security Council’s session ended at 10 p.m., the President announced from the chair that letters supporting the Three Power initiative had been received from the delegations of Spain, Italy, Turkey, Ireland, the Argentine, the Philippines, Austria and Thailand. The New York Times today reports accordingly. I am surprised at the omission of Canada from the list because Dr. McKay,³ the Canadian representative, told me during the session that he had consulted Mr. Léger⁴ on the ‘phone and had been authorised to associate Canada with the proposal.

I should be grateful if you could have copies made of this report and a copy sent to me and also to the Ambassador in Washington.