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

320/11–1152: Telegram

The Head of the United States Delegation at the United Nations (Acheson) to the Department of State

secret priority

New York, November 11, 1952—7:44 p.m.

Delga 168. Re: Gadel 47,¹ November 10 race conflict in South Africa.

After full staff discussion and Secy’s mtg with Sprague, Jessup, Cohen and Hickerson, Sprague replied today to Mme. Pandit (Delga 141)¹ along fol lines:

We have given most careful consideration to this difficult problem. We realize that it will be with us for a long time to come and we wish to make a constructive contribution towards its settlement. There are many delegations which in good faith have grave doubts regarding GA’s competency to act in such matters. We also believe it wld not advance solution of problem to point finger at South Africa. We have therefore prepared two drafts of res which wld avoid competency problem and which we believe we could support though we cld not sponsor or co-sponsor. We have strong reservations about creation of a commission as proposed in Indian draft (Delga 141). We wld prefer a res without any commission which while generalized wld put GA on record as opposing type of discrimination being practiced in South Africa. On other hand, if commission were to be established it shld be technical and not political in composition, it shld tie together Assembly’s approach to various problems of this type. It shld make a painstaking study of problems of multi-racial societies and endeavor in its findings and conclusions to provide a basis for determining what UN could actually do about such matters.

Sprague then read draft generalized res substantially as transmitted Delga 141 and amended Gadel 44,² and draft combined res as transmitted Delga 147³ omitting sixth preambular para beginning “convinced”. We have in mind that this para might be reinstated later if it should appear advisable. In giving Mine. Pandit copies of foregoing, Sprague made it clear we could support one or other of these two res but this was as far as we could go. He stressed fact our exchanges of views on this matter and our authorship of these drafts should remain strictly confidential.

She promised discuss with her delegation tonight and give us reply tomorrow.

Acheson

1. Not printed, but see editorial note, supra.
1. Not printed, but see editorial note, supra.
2. Not printed, but see editorial note, supra. For text of the draft, see document US/A/AC.61/2 in UNP files, lot 60 D 268, “Indians in South Africa.”
3. Not printed, but see editorial note, supra. For text of the draft, see document US/A/AC.61/3 in UNP files, lot 60 D 268, “Indians in South Africa.”