IO Flies: US/A/2285
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Principal Executive Officer of the United States Delegation (Popper)
| Participants: | Mr. F. H. Corner, New Zealand Delegation |
| Mr. L. Wessels, South African Delegation | |
| Mr. Joseph Nisot, Belgian Delegation | |
| Mr. Pierre Pescatore, Luxembourg Delegation | |
| M. Vincent Broustra, French Delegation | |
| Mr. R. G. Riddell, Canadian Delegation | |
| Mr. J. Parrott, United Kingdom Delegation | |
| Mr. J. Plimsoll, Australian Delegation | |
| Mr. John Hickerson, United States Delegation | |
| Mr. David W. Wainhouse, United States Delegation | |
| Mr. Hayden Raynor, United States Delegation | |
| Mr. David H. Popper, United States Delegation |
At a small dinner given by the United States Delegation on December 5, general impressions of the work of the Assembly were exchanged and comments were elicited in a wide variety of subjects considered at this session. The more important items covered are as follows:
[Here follows discussion of several matters: general evaluation of Fourth GA, usefulness of UN to Soviets, membership, and Assembly commissions and sub-committees; see p. 27.]
5. Committee 4
There was considerable discussion of the work of Committee 4, especially since the Assembly had wound up the South West Africa discussion on the day the dinner was held. Wessels went so far as to suggest the abolition of the Fourth Committee, particularly on the ground that it contained very many emotional individuals who took positions on their own, without instructions from their government. The thought was that these matters should be dealt with in Committee I which might be more responsible as a number of heads of delegations sat there. However, Corner doubted that the members of Committee I were necessarily more responsible. He and others pointed out that the First Committee had not been able to resist emotional appeals on the rapid granting of independence to various Italian Colonies, particularly Somaliland, even though the more responsible members of the Committee knew that there was no real prospect of preparing [Page 369] Somaliland for independence in ten years. Wessels indicated that the South West Africa discussion had not gone too badly in the plenary session, since the most objectionable portion of the Indian resolution had been eliminated. Nevertheless, he said that he frankly did not know what instructions his government might send as a result of the debate and that his delegation was sitting on tenderhooks to see what the domestic reaction was going to be.
6. Colonial Problem
The Western Europeans spoke with considerable emotion about the illegal encroachment on their colonial prerogatives which was taking place in the UN. Nisot was particularly emphatic in stating that public opinion in his country simply would not accept this type of development and would be led by it even to raise the question of whether the UN was really a useful instrumentality at all. Nisot pointed out that Western European countries did not attack Latin American states or critically examine their internal policies, but that Latin Americans did not hesitate to make such attacks on Western European countries in an irresponsible manner for the alleged colonial practices of the latter. Parrott indicated that the United Kingdom had not yet reached a decision on the question whether it would continue to participate in the “73(e)” Special Committee. Nisot in private conversation prior to dinner made the following statement in the firmest manner, “Belgium cannot and will not make further concessions in the colonial field in the UN”.
[Here follows discussion of the remaining subjects: Africa, the Interim Committee, the International Court of Justice, and the practice of consultation. Regarding the latter, see page 27.]