Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Africa and South Asia, Volume XI, Part 1

IO files, lot 71 D 440

Memorandum of Conversation, by the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of European Affairs (Allen)

secret
SD/A/285

[New York,] October 14, 1952.

Subject:

• Proposed Item on South Africa Racial Policies

Participants:

• Ambassador Jooste, Chairman of the Delegation of the Union of South Africa
• The Secretary of State
• Ambassador Gross
• Mr. Allen

As to tactics in the handling of this issue, Ambassador Jooste stated that his Government desires to have the question of the competence of the UN dealt with at the outset and as an issue separate and apart from the merits of the case. They hope thus (1) to obtain a clear-cut decision by the Assembly on the competence question, and (2) to avoid, in so far as possible, the acrimonious debate which necessarily accompanies any discussion of the substance of the issue. In order to accomplish this, Ambassador Jooste has decided not to make the fight in the General Committee but merely to make a brief statement there placing South Africa’s position on the record and to raise the competence question for debate in the Plenary Session when it considers the recommendation of the GC that the item be inscribed.

The Secretary, stating his complete agreement with the tactical desirability of not precipitating a fight on the competence issue in the GC, expressed doubt as to the wisdom of seeking to obtain a separate decision on the issue in the Plenary. He pointed out that South Africa’s second stated objective of avoiding acrimonious debate could probably not be accomplished by this means. He suggested that in terms of the desirable result of keeping the discussion moderate and avoiding any or a bad resolution, South Africa would obtain more support if competence and merits were considered together. Those Delegations who agree with South Africa’s view on competence would certainly be opposed, for that reason, to any resolution which might be proposed. Moreover, some of the Delegations who believe the UN had competence would still oppose a proposed resolution as politically undesirable.

As to the United States position, the Secretary stated that we would vote for inscription of the item. Although we had in the case of Morocco and Tunis in the past year departed from our established position of permitting inscription and discussion of all items, we felt it necessary in this Session to return to the traditional view and would therefore support inscription of the Tunisian and Moroccan items as well. As to the competence of the GA, the Secretary stated that although there remains some difference of view within the U.S. Delegation, our present thinking is that the UN has competence to look into the problem of the racial policies of South Africa, to consider the matter, although whether it is competent to do anything about it is another question. He added that our present thinking along these lines on intellectual grounds must of course necessarily be conditioned to an undetermined extent by complicating factors of our own domestic and public opinion situation. In short, therefore, if the competence issue is precipitated in the Plenary we would not be able to state that the UN is without competence to consider the problem, despite our strong disinclination to find ourselves on opposite sides with South Africa. The Secretary pointed out that in our view the UN should be exceedingly careful in assessing its responsibilities and abilities under the Charter in the human rights field. The UN is enjoined to work for international cooperation in the promotion of human rights, but in the present case there is very little that the UN can and should do vis-à-vis the policies of South Africa in terms of actual results. He hoped that we might perhaps be able to prevail upon the Indians and other proponents of this item to take a moderate and reasonable attitude and to see the practical limitations of the UN in this field.

Ambassador Jooste pointed out that while the suggested tactics of permitting the issues of competence and substance to be considered together might work in an ordinary court of law, such a tactic has proved very unproductive for South Africa in past GA consideration of the problem of the treatment of Indians. He agreed that it would be impossible in Plenary, in raising the competence issue, to avoid acrimonious statements by the Arab-Asians on the substance and added that indeed there was some indication that the Arab-Asian group did not desire a specific resolution on the subject but would be content with discussion. However, discussion itself can be one of the most effective forms of intervention in the domestic affairs of South Africa, and UN discussion in the past has in his view proved to be a major impetus to the present passive resistance movement. However, if such discussion is confined to the Plenary as incidental to the competence issue, the South African Delegation intends to ignore it so far as possible and to avoid being drawn into a debate. However, if the question is referred to the Committee, it is very likely that the South African Delegation would not be in a position to participate in any discussion and thus to answer any of false and distorted charges. The Committee would be certain to invite the Reverend Michael Scott¹ and others to appear before it, and the consequences of such action in South Africa would be very grave; they might even “blow South Africa out of the Organization.”

In response to a question, Ambassador Jooste stated that it was the intention of his Delegation to argue this question of competence in the Plenary on a motion of non-competence of the GA and not on the technical ground of opposing admission of the item to the agenda, although he conceded that it amounted to the same thing. He did not desire to make any comment either for or against the possibility of referring the competence question to the International Court of Justice.

Although other tactical possibilities of avoiding a fight on the competence issue in the Plenary were touched upon, Ambassador Jooste made clear that his Government believes this is the only practicable course open to it. The Secretary stated that we would, of course, in our continuing consideration of the problem, give the views which the Ambassador had expressed the most careful consideration.

1. An Anglican priest and former resident of the Union of South Africa who, at the request of the Chief of the South West African Herero tribe, spoke in behalf of the South West African tribal chiefs before the United Nations. Scott had addressed the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly as early as 1949.