Controlling International Institutions: How the US Engineered UNSC Non‐permanent Members in the Early Cold War

Abstract

How did the US shape the composition of the UN Security Council during the early Cold War period? By focusing on the election of non‐permanent members to Council seats, this paper investigates what role the US played in the nomination and election of candidate countries. In doing so, the study relies heavily on US diplomatic archives since those archival materials are rich in terms of voting preferences of UN members, negotiations between the US and its allies, and Washington's intensive lobbying for candidates. Investigating contested elections from 1946 to 1964, we find that although the US had an extensive influence on determining Council's non‐permanent members, its power to influence election outcomes dramatically weakened from the late 1950s onwards. This finding has important implications for the recent literature on the UN Security Council.

Do Gladiators Fight for Their Masters? Voting Behavior of the US-Promoted United Nations Security Council Members in the Early Cold War

“…It was important for the United States to reject the Soviet proposals and to ensure that they received a minimum number of votes. Therefore, Washington expended much diplomatic energy to keep the voting margin in its favor and the UNSC at its maximum (Balci 2022a, 263, 265). It was this voting margin that pushed the Soviet Union to cast a negative vote (i.e., veto) and reassured the United States in rejecting the Soviet proposal without applying its veto power (Todd 1969, 75–76).…”

“…The recently burgeoning literature focuses on the importance of nonpermanent members and their votes in the UNSC (Balci 2022a; Farrall et al 2020; Nick Pay and Postolski 2021). A permanent member with more allies from the elected members has two crucial advantages.…”

“…Although voting for one candidate is not an election interference, influencing other countries’ votes and forcing one candidate to withdraw can be considered an electoral interference. For Washington’s electoral interventions between 1946 and 1964, we relied on Balci’s (2022a) study and also consulted the US diplomatic archive. These relevant sources revealed that the United States intervened in the elections in three ways.…”

“…For example, in the 1954 elections, US diplomats persuaded reluctant Turkish diplomats to run Turkey as a candidate against Poland. Third, Washington put diplomatic pressure on its allies to vote for the candidate it supported (Balci 2022a). Table 2 lists US campaigns and interventions for a particular candidate in UNSC elections between 1946 and 1965.…”

“…In the third situation, the great powers directly intervene in UNSC elections, expecting that the supported country will work in their favor while serving in the Council. Recent research interest clearly shows that permanent members of the UNSC intervened in the election of nonpermanent members thereby influencing the outcome (Balci 2022a; Eldar 2008; Malone 2000, 17–18). However, it is not known whether the great powers achieved their desired results from their interventions in UNSC elections.…”