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

UNP files, lot 60 D 268, “Indians in South Africa”

Memorandum by the Deputy Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs (Popper) to the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Murphy)¹

secret

[Washington,] August 31, 1953.

Race Conflict in South Africa—United States Vote on Inclusion in Agenda

The Secretary has asked us to reconsider the question of how the United States should vote on inclusion of the apartheid item in the agenda.

On reconsideration, we still feel that the United States should continue to vote in favor of inclusion of the item, but should oppose any action censuring South Africa. There are listed below the points which have led us to this decision, and thereafter the arguments which might be used in pressing for a negative vote.

I will be glad to discuss these points with you at your convenience, with a view to working out a revised position paper to present to the Secretary.

Factors Favoring an Affirmative Vote.

1. Fundamentally we have based our position on the competence of the Assembly to discuss all matters “within the scope” of the Charter (Article 10). The Charter is replete with references to human rights. For instance, Articles 55 and 56 provide that all members should cooperate in promoting universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. It is charged that South Africa has embarked upon a governmental policy designed not to promote but to suppress systematically certain basic human rights. We do not think it can be argued that Article 2, Paragraph 7 prevents even a discussion of these charges, or that, even if the apartheid policy is a domestic matter, such a discussion constitutes “intervention” within the meaning of this paragraph.

2. This item was included in the agenda last year by a vote of 45 for inclusion, 6 against (Colombia, Australia, France, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, and the United Kingdom), with 8 abstentions. It is safe to assert that we will not be able to prevent the inclusion of this matter on the agenda this year; only a simple majority is required for inclusion.

3. The Seventh General Assembly set up a commission to study the international implications of the apartheid policy, asked the commission to report to the Eighth Session and decided to include this item on the agenda of the Eighth Session.² There is no precedent in the Assembly’s history for refusing to consider a commission report for which it has asked. In fact when the Soviets opposed the inclusion of the Greek and Korean items on the agenda we branded their position as absurd on the ground that in both cases the Assembly had set up commissions whose reports it could not refuse to review.

4. A reversal of our past position will be dramatized as a United States repudiation of the principle of free and open discussion in the Assembly. The United States will also be accused of sympathizing with the Malan policy and of siding with the white, “colonial” powers. Coming just after our stand on India as a participant in the political conference and our position on Morocco in the Security Council, the impact on public opinion in Asia and the Middle East will be serious. Our ability to win support for any of our policy objectives in the General Assembly will be reduced to a minimum, and Soviet influence in the Assembly correspondingly increased.

5. There will be an adverse reaction among substantial sections of United States public opinion.

6. We are pressing at this Assembly for a condemnation of Soviet forced labor practices, and we may decide in the future to bring other charges against the Russians for human rights violations. Can we expect support for such cases if we oppose discussion of apartheid?

Factors Favoring a Negative Vote.

1. It would definitely improve our position vis-à-vis South Africa, the United Kingdom, France and Australia. In strategic terms, this is clearly in our interest.

2. General Assembly resolutions have not caused South Africa to moderate its policies, and will not do so. Why should we agree to a repeat performance, year after year, in the Assembly? Why not confine Assembly action to matters in which it can make an effective contribution?

3. The Assembly last year debated this item at length, so that the issue of free discussion in the United Nations does not arise.

4. If we continue to permit discussion of such subjects, the Assembly will encroach farther and farther into the field of domestic jurisdiction. In the end, our own domestic policies may come under scrutiny.

1. This memorandum was drafted by Popper (UNP) and Stein (UNP).
2. General Assembly resolution 616 A (VII); see editorial note, p. 976. On Mar. 30, 1953, the General Assembly decided, on the proposal of the President of the General Assembly, that the Commission should be composed of the following persons: Dantes Bellegarde, Henri Laugier, and Hernán Santa Cruz, who were to serve in a personal capacity.