Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T01:27:33.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Small States of Western Europe in the United Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Annette Baker Fox
Annette Baker Fox
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Anna P. Schreiber, graduate student in the Department of Public Law and Government
Get access

Extract

Only six of the small states of Western or Western oriented Europe participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco. They were Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Norway, Luxembourg, and, after a struggle between the Soviet Union and its wartime allies, Denmark. Their participation followed, for the most part, the model of the “honorable, independent, disinterested small state”: sober, responsible, speaking mainly when spoken to, but assiduously seeking out ways to make their voices heard in the alleviation of international conflict. True, they were there as part of the winning coalition in World War II and shared the hopes and expectations of the larger Western powers concerning the role of the United Nations. But they joined similar countries outside Europe, particularly Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, in helping to shape a UN Charter which in certain ways differed from the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. The role of the General Assembly was, for example, enlarged, thus modifying the special position of the Great Powers, and the scope of the United Nations in economic and social fields was expanded. The influence of the small states in Europe stemmed from the desire of the major Western allies, particularly the United States, to ensure the success of the enterprise by concessions to those whose participation would be necessary to make it a worthwhile undertaking.

Type
III. The United Nations and Its Members
Information
International Organization , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , Summer 1965 , pp. 774 - 786
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Goodrich, Leland M., The United Nations (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1959), pp. 26–27Google Scholar; and Glazebrook, George de T., “The Middle Powers in the United Nations System,” International Organization, 06 1947 (Vol. 1, No. 2), pp. 307–315, especially p. 310CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Fox, William T. R., “The Super-Powers at San Francisco,” The Review of Politics, 01 1946 (Vol. 8, No. 1), pp. 121–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Freymond, Jacques, “The Foreign Policy of Switzerland,” in Black, Joseph E. and Thompson, Kenneth W. (ed.) Foreign Policies in a World of Change (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 149–171, especially p. 152Google Scholar.

4 Nuño Aguirre de Cáreer and Gonzalo Fernández de la Mora, “The Foreign Policy of Spain,” in ibid., pp. 199–222, especially p. 208.

5 Belgium, in particular, but also Norway favored a break in diplomatic relations; Denmark and Sweden, however, considered this to be intervention in Spain's domestic affairs and in any case of no avail. In the Security Council the Netherlands expressed doubt concerning the constitutionality of actions within the “domestic jurisdiction” of Spain. All these states later joined those agreeable to weakening the adamant opposition to Spain.

6 See Sweden and the Untied Nations (Report by a Special Study Group of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs Prepared for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) (New York: Manhattan Publishing Company, 1956), especially pp. 68–109, 196–197Google Scholar; Ahman, Brita Skottsberg, “Scandinavian Foreign Policy, Past and Present,” in Friis, Henning (ed.), Scandinavia—Between East and West (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1950), pp. 256–305, especially p. 292Google Scholar; and Tingsten, Herbert, “Issues in Swedish Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, 04 1959 (Vol. 37, No. 3), p. 477CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See Armstrong, Hamilton Fish, “U.N. on Trial,” Foreign Affairs, 04 1961 (Vol. 39, No. 3), P. 397CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Haekkerup, Per, “Scandinavia's Peace-Keeping Forces for the U.N.,” Foreign Affairs, 07 1964 (Vol. 42, No. 4), p. 675CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Neutrals, lacking powerful allies, especially entertained these hopes. Bruno Kreisky, Austria's Foreign Minister, said:

We also knew … we would derive international recognition [of our neutrality] from membership. Such recognition implied a measure of security which we could not have found elsewhere. (Foreign Affairs, 04 1959 [Vol. 37, No. 2], p. 274Google Scholar.) See also the remarks of Finland's President Urho Kekkonen along the same lines as noted by Jakobson, Max, “Finland in the United Nations,” in Introduction to Finland, 1963 (Helsinki: Finland Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1963), pp. 67–73Google Scholar.

10 See Henningsen, Sven, “The Foreign Policy of Denmark,” in Black, and Thompson, , p. 101Google Scholar.

11 However, when the United States in late 1962 secured a Portuguese agreement to permit United Nations representatives to visit its colonies, the Asian-African opponents would not accept the proposed resolution; they declared that they already had enough information to condemn Portugal.

12 Pélessier, René, “Spain's Discreet Decolonization,” Foreign Affairs, 04 1965 (Vol. 43, No. 3), pp. 519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Jacobson, Harold Karan, “ONUC's Civilian Operations: State-Preserving and State-Building,” World Politics, 10 1964 (Vol. 17, No. 1), pp. 75–107, especially p. 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 For some analyses of these alignments, see Alker, Hayward R. Jr, “Dimensions of Conflict in the General Assembly,” The American Political Science Review, 09 1964 (Vol. 58, No. 3), pp. 642–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hovet, Thomas Jr, Bloc Politics in the United Nations (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Russett, Bruce M., Trends in World Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1965), especially pp. 67–105Google Scholar; and Lijphart, Arend, “The Analysis of Bloc Voting in the General Assembly: A Critique and a Proposal,” The American Political Science Review, 12 1963 (Vol. 57, No. 4), pp. 902–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Ireland, however, in 1962 opposed a proposal in the General Assembly's Second (Economic and Financial) Committee to extend aid in population control to overpopulated underdeveloped states.

16 Jakobson, , in Introduction to Finland, 1963, p. 68Google Scholar; and Törngren, Ralf, “The Neutrality of Finland,” Foreign Affairs, 07 1961 (Vol. 39, No. 4), p. 606CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 O'Brien, Conor Cruise, To Katanga and Back, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963), p. 15Google Scholar.

18 Their views in the Bizerte case between Tunisia and France show this tendency especially clearly.

19 These comments apply to membership in the United Nations. For Austria and Finland, otherwise quite isolated prior to their admission to the Organization, membership in the specialized agencies meant prized international contacts. In later years, after its selection as the seat of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna aspired to be another Geneva.

20 O'Brien, pp. 25–26.

21 Based on figures from the annual reports of the Technical Assistance Board (TAB), the Yearbook of the United Nations, and the annual report of the Special Fund.

22 Sharp, Walter R., Field Administration in the United Nations System: The Conduct of International Social and Economic Programs (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1961), p. 140Google Scholar.

23 Padelford, Norman J., “Financial Crisis and the Future of the United Nations,” World Politics, 07 1963 (Vol. 15, No. 4), pp. 531–568, especially p. 536CrossRefGoogle Scholar. These same countries provided a higher percentage of their gross national product than the United States or the United Kingdom. Together the small Western European states contributed a larger percentage of the total than the Soviet Union.

24 Henningsen, in Black and Thompson, p. 99.

25 Jakobson, , in Introduction to Finland, 1963, pp. 72–73Google Scholar.

26 See Goodrich, Leland M., “Geographical Distribution of the Staff of the UN Secretariat,” International Organization, Summer 1962 (Vol. 16, No. 3), pp. 465–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Langrod, Georges, The International Civil Service: Its Origins, Its Nature, Its Evolution (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y: Oceana Publications, 1963), pp. 96–98, 176, 187–188, 190, 248, 251Google Scholar; and Bailey, Sydney D., The Secretariat of the United Nations (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1962), pp. 82–86, 91, 96, 99Google Scholar.

27 Haekkerup, , Foreign Affairs, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 675–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 See Singer, Marshall R. and Sensenig, Barton III, “Elections within the United Nations: An Experimental Study Utilizing Statistical Analysis,” International Organization, Autumn 1963 (Vol. 17, No. 4), pp. 901–925, especially pp. 919–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 See Manno, Catherine Senf, “Problems and Trends in the Composition of Nonplenary UN Organs,” International Organization, Winter 1965 (Vol. 19, No. 1), pp. 37–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.