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”

Department of State Position Paper¹

confidential
SD/A/C.1/426

[Washington,] September 4, 1953.

Race Conflict in South Africa Resulting From Policies of Apartheid

The Problem

Thirteen Arab-Asian states submitted for inclusion in the agenda of the last General Assembly the question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the apartheid policy of the Government of the Union of South Africa. The Assembly established a Commission to study the question; the Commission will report its conclusions to the General Assembly at the forthcoming Session. It also decided to retain this item on the provisional agenda of the 1953 Session.

United States Position

1. The United States should vote for inclusion of this item on the agenda. (For explanation, see comment below.)

2. While stressing its opposition to race discrimination, the United States should take the position that the Assembly has already fully discussed the apartheid problem and that further substantive action would be ineffective and undesirable. Subject to the Department’s comment on specific proposals, this should be the criterion by which the Delegation should be guided in the voting. In particular, the United States should oppose any formal approval of the Commission’s anticipated conclusions critical of South Africa, or the continuation of the Commission.

3. As a means of disposing of the mater, the United States could support a general resolution similar to one passed in 1952, calling upon all states to bring their human rights policies into accord with Charter principles.

4. The United States should vote against any proposal automatically including this item on the provisional agenda of the Ninth Session.

Comment

This item is already included in the provisional agenda as the result of action by the Seventh General Assembly. It was placed on the agenda of that Session by an overwhelming vote of 45–6–8; consequently it would be unrealistic to assume that our opposition to inclusion would result in deletion of the item from the agenda. Moreover, the Assembly has never asked a commission for a report and then refused to consider this report by reversing a prior decision to retain the item on its agenda. The United States last year favored discussion of this problem. The United States representative stated that the Assembly has the right to discuss this matter and that Article 2(7) cannot be taken as a bar to this right. This statement reflects the fact that the Charter is replete with references to human rights; and in particular United Nations Members have pledged themselves to cooperate in promoting respect for human rights (Articles 55 and 56). However, the United States opposed any Assembly action censuring South Africa and abstained on the proposal to establish the Commission. If the United States should now oppose even the inclusion of this question in the agenda it would open itself to propaganda charges of not only seeking to block free discussion but also of sympathizing with the Malan policy. Finally, our opposition to inclusion might seriously affect the Assembly support for our own charges against Soviet Communism based on its suppression of basic human rights (e.g., forced labor).

The Report of the Commission will undoubtedly indicate failure to make any progress in dealing with the problem. Discussion of the report should be utilized to demonstrate that there are no practical advantages in further Assembly action.

1. This paper was prepared for the use of the U.S. Delegation to the Seventh Session of the UN General Assembly. A memorandum by the Assistant Secretary for United Nations Affairs, Robert D. Murphy, to Secretary Dulles referred to this paper, among others, as a draft and indicated that it had been cleared with all interested bureaus. (Sept. 4, 1953; Hickerson–Murphy–Key files, lot 58 D 33, “Notes/South Africa”)