UNP files, lot 60 D 268, “Indians in South Africa”
Memorandum by Armistead Lee of the Office of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs to the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of European Affairs (Allen)
Attitude of South African Moderates Towards UN Debates and Resolutions on Apartheid
While Ambassador Gallman’s telegram of October 71 reaffirms that “virtually all white South Africans” are of the opinion that UN [Page 1015] discussion of the Indian and apartheid items are “unwarranted interference in the Union’s domestic affairs”, this may not be exactly what Mrs. Bolton wanted to know. As I understand it, she was asking whether the total impact of the UN debates and resolutions was an encouragement to those moderate and liberal South Africans who are opposing the apartheid policies of the Nationalist Government.
This is one issue which has been foremost in our minds here in BNA ever since the Indians first proposed an item on “race conflict” for last year’s Assembly. We consulted Ambassador Gallman on this point last fall, when he was in Washington,2 and his judgment then has been confirmed by subsequent events. We have encouraged the Embassy to give special attention to reporting events bearing on this subject during the past year. These reports have all led to the same conclusion. This conclusion has been further confirmed by non-official Americans who have visited the Union (like Douglass Steere of the Friends Service Committee) and by liberal South Africans with whom we have talked here (Professor Houghton of Rhodes University and Cedric Hahn, whose distaste for the racial policies of his Government has caused him to resign from the South African Embassy here). Finally, our judgment on this point was confirmed as a result of the recent visit to the Union by the Director of our Office, Mr. Hayden Raynor, who made a point of sounding out such liberals as Mrs. Margaret Ballinger, M.P., Natives representative in Parliament and President of the newly-formed Liberal Party, as well as Professor Leo Marquardt who (together with Alan Paton) is one of the Vice Presidents of the Liberal Party. He also talked to Father Huddleston, the Anglican priest whose work in the native slums of Johannesburg is internationally known.
Briefly, the conclusion is that condemnatory resolutions by the UN, directed against the conduct of race relations in South Africa, arouse the resentment of both moderates and reactionaries, and that its total effect is to mobilize behind the Government many Europeans who are basically opposed to the Nationalist Government’s racial policies.
The proof of this is to be found in the references to UN interference in the Parliamentary session and in the campaign preceding the general elections last April. So far from being embarrassed by the attacks on South Africa in the United Nations, the Nationalist Government appeared to go out of its way to remind the voters of what had happened [Page 1016] in the 7th General Assembly. It was mentioned in the Government’s Speech from the Throne, and in numerous speeches by Government leaders during the pre-election session. The Government gloried in its role of defending South Africa from interference by the UN, and by Asian and Arab countries whose caste-ridden and feudal societies hardly qualified them to point the accusing finger.
By contrast, the Opposition, fighting desperately for the marginal voters, was put on the defensive by the UN issue. They were compelled to take a “me-too” position whenever the subject was raised, and to insist that this was not an election issue.
I would not go so far as to say that UN interference was the decisive issue which beat the United Party in the elections. I do feel quite positive, however, that its total effect was to help the Nationalists. Both Mr. Hahn and Professor Houghton, an economist and liberal-minded South African specialist on native affairs, were quite emphatic when questioned on this point. Houghton mentioned also that the Nationalists had another gratuitous windfall, on the very eve of the election, when Nehru made a speech attacking the South African Government. He thought that this had won a number of marginal voters to the Nationalists at the eleventh hour.
That some of the moderate leaders of the African National Congress appear to be aware of this aspect seems borne out by the fact that Dr. Moroka, who was then President of the African National Congress, declared publicly in regard to the Passive Resistance Campaign (which the ANC was conducting) that this was a domestic issue. Another moderate native leader … did not expect the UN debate to do any good, although he did think that the U.S. Government, acting outside the UN, might achieve somthing by tactfully urging the Government to meet with the native leaders.
I do not wish to give the impression that all of these sources are unanimous in believing that the United Nations should have nothing to say on the subject of race relations, or that any action by the UN is an obstacle to the forces of moderation in South Africa. Many of them seem to feel, as we do here in BNA, that the UN can help if it stays within its Charter limitations in this field. It can help by stating, and restating in more explicit terms, the general standards of human rights incumbent on all members while avoiding a condemnation of the domestic policies of any one member nation.
It was with this purpose in mind that we supported the Scandinavian resolution last year. Although it was finally adopted, whatever help it might have afforded liberal elements in South Africa was much diminished by the fact that it failed to replace the Arab-Asian resolution establishing the Apartheid Commission. I think it significant that published statements of the Liberal Party of South Africa, while [Page 1017] referring occasionally to the ill will which the Nationalist racial policies have caused abroad, have carefully refrained from drawing attention to the statements of Michael Scott or the activities of the UN Commission meeting in Geneva.
You will understand why the above arguments cannot be used in public statements, except in the most general terms. We can hardly urge, in a public forum, that a given course of action by the UN should be avoided because it serves to perpetuate in office the Government of a member state with whom the United States enjoys friendly relations. But in private conversations with other delegations much of this could be said . . . . It is a pity that the Indians should not be more aware of how much their efforts both within and outside the UN last year, helped to keep Malan’s Government in power.
- Not printed. On Oct. 2, 1953, during a meeting of a working group of the U.S. Delegation in New York, U.S. Representative Frances P. Bolton raised the question of whether General Assembly debates and resolutions were in any way helpful to moderate groups within the Union of South Africa, or whether they were counterproductive, or had no observable effect. (Telegram Delga 56 from New York, Oct. 2, 1953; 320/10–253). Consequently, the Department of State forwarded telegram Delga 56 to the Capetown Embassy and requested a specific comment. (Telegram 30 to Capetown, Oct. 5, 1953; 320/10–253) Ambassador Gallman’s response, dated Oct. 7, 1953, was: “on basis our observations and exchanges we have been having with observant South Africans, we must reiterate that virtually all white South Africans are of firm opinion that UN discussion of Indian and apartheid items are unwarranted interference in Union’s domestic affairs.” (Telegram 33 from Capetown, Oct. 7, 1953; 320/10–753)↩
- No record of this conversation could be found in Department of State files.↩