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

IO files, lot 71 D 440

Department of State Position Paper¹

restricted
SD/A/C.4/123

[Washington,] September 5, 1953.

Question of South West Africa: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on South West Africa

The Problem

To deal with the situation brought about by the inability of the Ad Hoc Committee on South West Africa and the Union of South Africa to agree on measures for implementing the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice to the effect that the mandated territory of South West Africa be placed under a form of United Nations supervision. Although this question was postponed by the Seventh General Assembly, and the Ad Hoc Committee (of which the United States is a member) was asked to continue its efforts to negotiate an agreement with the Union, meetings between the Committee and representatives of the Union have proved fruitless.² Under the circumstances it is unlikely that the Assembly will continue this Committee, but efforts may be expected to put pressure on the Union to proceed with implementing the Court’s opinion or to condemn the Union for not having done so.

United States Position

1. The United States should continue to support implementation of the Court’s opinion.

2. The United States should take the position that it would be inappropriate to urge the Union to place South West Africa under trusteeship as such a proposal would go beyond the Court’s opinion. In the event that a proposal to this effect is nonetheless put to a vote, the United States should abstain.

3. The United States should seek to keep the door open to a possible future agreement between the Union and the United Nations regarding South West Africa. Consequently, while it might concur in a resolution regretting the failure thus far to implement the Court’s opinion, it should oppose an overtly condemnatory resolution.

Comment

The disposition of the mandated territory of South West Africa has been a subject of discussion in the United Nations since 1946. The Union considers the League of Nations mandate non-existent and wishes, in effect, to assimilate the territory to the Union.

The United Nations objects to such assimilation, especially under present segregation policies of the Union; urges trusteeship or some other form of United Nations supervision; and has appointed a Committee of five (Thailand, Norway, Syria, Uruguay, and the United States) to negotiate a satisfactory agreement with the Union.

The International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion on the matter in 1950, inter alia, as follows:

a. The mandate continues in force;

b. It cannot be altered unilaterally

c. The supervisory function of the League should be exercised by the United Nations, but in a manner which would not “exceed” the supervision applied under the Mandates System.

The Union Government rejects the Court’s opinion and has made a proposal that an Agreement might be made with the three remaining Principal Allied and Associated Powers (United Kingdom, France, United States) as principals, but not as agents of the United Nations. The United States and the United Kingdom have indicated they would consider this only if approved by the United Nations. The United Nations, however, finds this unacceptable.

The United States and the United Nations have approved the advisory opinion of the Court and this has been the basis of the negotiations.

As the Union of South Africa rejects the opinion, especially the provision for United Nations supervision, no arrangement satisfactory to the General Assembly and the Union has been found.

In its most recent communications to the representative of the Union (July, 1953), the Ad Hoc Committee on South West Africa sets forth in detail the reasons for which the Union’s proposal is unsatisfactory and urges the Union to accept the principle of international supervision “so that the negotiations concerning South West Africa may be brought to a satisfactory conclusion”. To date there has been no reply to this communication from the Union.

1. This paper was prepared for use of the U.S. Delegation to the Eighth Session of the UN General Assembly.
2. On June 25, 1953, the Representative of the Union of South Africa repeated to the Ad Hoc Committee on South West Africa his government’s position that South Africa had no binding responsibility to the United Nations for the administration of South West Africa; and he reiterated the South African proposal that a new instrument, concerning the administration of the territory, be concluded between the Union of South Africa and the three remaining Principal Allied and Associated Powers of World War I (France, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The South African Representative then asked whether the Committee as a whole had decided formally to reject this proposal. The formal response of the Ad Hoc Committee was delivered to the Representative of the Union Government on July 10, 1953. It stated that the South African proposal “did not provide for means for implementing the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and did not recognize the principle of supervision of the administration of South West Africa by the United Nations.” The Committee, which had been commissioned under resolution 570 (VI) to seek means of implementing the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, therefore, stated that it was unable to accept the proposal as a basis for detailed discussion. The Committee also noted that “negotiations for a new international instrument could be undertaken only by the United Nations, acting through an agency appointed by any responsible to it.” (Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on South West Africa to the General Assembly, Sept. 21, 1953, UN document A/2475) A draft of the Committee’s response and an explanatory memorandum were forwarded to Secretary Dulles by Sandifer (UNA) on July 6, 1953. A handwritten note attached to the draft indicates that it was approved by Deputy Under Secretary Matthews, but that the Secretary did not see it. (ODA files, lot 60 D 512, “South West Africa, 1953”)