Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Arab-Israeli Dispute; United Arab Republic; North Africa, Volume XIII

301. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission at the United Nations¹

Washington, September 29, 1959—8:53 p.m.

Gadel 24. Re order First Committee agenda. Department has given careful study to question of order First Committee agenda which this year is far more complicated than normally. French desire early treatment Algeria, while Afro-Asian group wants it last.

When Couve raised question with us last week² he made point that early consideration Algerian item might help capitalize on momentum generated by DeGaulle plan. We believe this consideration is perhaps valid. However, in view developments since then, we believe that while early consideration Algerian item perhaps desirable, it is not in French interest to insist that Political Committee consider Algerian item first or soon thereafter (on assumption Korean item would take about three days to complete). We are convinced that bitter procedural fight on timing would create unfavorable atmosphere for serious consideration DeGaulle plan and French insistence on early treatment would arouse suspicion they do not believe DeGaulle program will stand careful scrutiny. Moreover, we agree with your view³ that Arabs should be permitted react naturally to DeGaulle plan without forcing them to take position in GA prematurely which could jeopardize prospects for later agreement.

If French and Afro-Asian group cannot agree on timing, US would be caught in middle. It we vote for early treatment, it will confirm Afro-Asian fears we are going all out in support of French, while negative vote or abstention would be regarded by French as inconsistent with our proclaimed support for DeGaulle’s proclamation. Soviet bloc would line up with Afro-Asian group on this question to curry favor and could obtain maximum amount of credit for minimum expenditure effort.⁴

In these circumstances, Department requests GADel inform French at earliest opportunity of following points and our intention to make them known to Murray (Secretariat) with view having him take appropriate steps re order agenda items.

1. In general, we do not disagree with French that early consideration of Algerian item desirable. However, in view strong interest in disarmament items stimulated by Khrushchev speech⁵ we do not believe it possible to prevent disarmament from being considered before Algerian item.

2. Moreover, we share with French common interest in avoiding serious fight on timing Algerian item consideration. Bitter and acrimonious debate on timing consideration Algerian item will not serve interests of French and it likely prejudice favorable developments on part Algerians and Arabs in their reaction to DeGaulle plan. Moreover, such debate on timing would expend needlessly support of some of France’s friends on procedural issue.⁶

3. Best possible climate for progress on Algerian question will be created if some reasonable agreement on timing is achieved which will give at least partial satisfaction to principal parties concerned. One possible suggestion which occurs to us would be⁷ have disarmament items considered first on understanding Algeria would be considered second. Such arrangement would mean Algerian item would be considered about first of November rather than December as is being pressed by Arab-Asians. Such order would allow time for favorable developments among those principally concerned and would still permit consideration Algerian item sufficiently early to capitalize on momentum generated by DeGaulle declaration.⁸

Herter

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 320.11/9–2959. Confidential. Drafted by Sisco and Buffum on September 28; cleared by Nunley, Murphy, Merchant, McElhiney, Wilcox, S/AE, AF, and WE; and approved by Murphy. Repeated to Paris and London.
2. A memorandum of Herter’s September 18 conversation with Couve de Murville, SecDel/MC/21, is ibid., Secretary’s Memoranda of Conversation: Lot 64 D 199. Its substance was sent to the Department of State in Delga 20, also September 18. (Ibid., Central Files, 751S.00/9–1859)
3. Transmitted in Delga 46, September 23. (Ibid., 320.11/9–2359)
4. At this point in the source text, the following sentence was deleted before transmission: “Major hope for avoiding this pitfall lies in possibility that French and Arabs might agree on timing of debate.”
5. For text of Khrushchev’s September 18 address, see U.N. Doc. A/PV.799.
6. At this point in the source text, the following sentence was deleted before transmission: “Such support should be conserved since it will be needed subsequently on far more important question of substantive action by General Assembly.”
7. At this point in the source text, the words “for French agree” were deleted before transmission.

8. At this point in the source text, the following sentence was deleted before transmission: “We believe French could accept such arrangement provided it is not expected to engage at this point in direct discussions with Tunisians and Moroccans on question of order of agenda.” During the 14th Session of the U.N. General Assembly, the First Committee considered the question of Algeria next to last.