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

845A.411/11–2353: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations¹

confidential

Washington, December 1, 1953—5:18 p.m.

Gaclel 107. Re Apartheid Case (Delgas 312,² 313,³ 322⁴):

1. We continue believe approach in 17-Power Resolution (Delga 313) not appropriate for this problem and consider Commission’s operation and report confirm futility of exercise. We do not like proposed new authority for the Commission “to suggest measures which would help to alleviate the situation and promote peaceful settlement”. Consequently, we would have considered logical for US to vote against this resolution. We assume from Delga 322 that Delegation’s recommendation for abstention motivated by overriding desire not to have US appear as supporting racial discrimination. Therefore Delegation is authorized abstain. If resolution voted paragraph by paragraph, suggest you vote against paragraph 2(a) (i) in text A/AC.72/L.14.⁵

2. Department considered South African competence resolution (Delga 312). In view of well established South African position, we are compelled to interpret word “intervene” to include discussion which goes beyond intent of paragraph 2(7). FYI. While we, of course, agree that subjects listed in first paragraph this resolution fall essentially within domestic jurisdiction of member state we are concerned that US human rights action program could never be implemented if UN should be absolutely barred from discussing such matters. End FYI.

We believe Lannung’s approach (Delga 312)⁶ is basically sound. In our view, matter before GA is not directed toward action on any of specific topics listed, but toward an expression of view by GA on overall South African race policy which is a subject within purview of Charter. Therefore, we feel South African resolution goes too far in implying lack of GA competence to discuss.

We are seriously concerned at recent UN trend towards dealing with domestic matters. However, South African resolution would set up a legal barrier in such broad and vague terms that under its logic, UN activities could be drastically curtailed. For this reason, US Delegation should vote against South African resolution in its present form. Delegation should explain our position, reiterating substance Lodge’s statement in General Committee on this case.⁷

Dulles

1. This telegram was drafted by Popper (UNP) and Stein (UNP); approved by Popper; and cleared by Phleger (L), Sandifer (UNA), Thacher (SOA), and the Secretary’s office.
2. Not printed. In this telegram, the U.S. Delegation reported that the Union of South Africa had introduced in the Ad Hoc Political Committee a draft resolution (UN document A/AC.72/L.13), which declared the Committee not competent to deal with the race question item and forwarded a text of the draft. The Delegation noted that the draft did not make clear the scope of the word “intervene” and sought to categorize a whole series of specifically named topics as being within domestic jurisdiction, regardless of possible treaty obligations. (320/11–2353)
3. Dated Nov. 24, p. 1022.
4. Not printed. In this telegram, the U.S. Delegation recommended that the United States should abstain on the 17-power draft resolution. (845A.411/11–2553)
5. Referenced section of the draft resolution reads: “(2) requests the Commission (a) to continue its study of the development of the racial situation in the Union of South Africa: (i) with reference to the various implications of that situation on the populations affected.”
6. Not printed. The U.S. Delegation reported that, according to Danish Representative Hermod Lannung, Denmark would probably vote against the South African draft resolution as it appeared to include discussion within the scope of “intervention” and because the General Assembly was considering race conflict in South Africa in general and not considering specific topics listed in the South African draft. (320/11–2353)
7. On Sept. 16, 1953, Representative Lodge, speaking in the General Committee, said that, while the United States would vote in favor of recommending the inclusion of the race conflict item on the agenda, the item “invited questions about the competence of the Assembly under Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. The United States Government has observed with increasing concern the tendency of the Assembly to place on its agenda subjects, the international character of which was doubtful.” (Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighth Session, General Committee, Summary Records of Meetings 15 September–9 December 1953)