353/8–950: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in South Africa 1

confidential

18. ReDeptel 17, Aug 7.2 In conversation Aug 73 Dept attempted impress upon Jooste desirability So Afr in forthcoming GA session express willingness submit reports on SW Afr pursuant ICJ opinion.4 Jooste agreed transmit our recommendations his govt. He made fol statements: (1) So Afr “shocked” that 6 out of 14 ICJ judges held So Afr legally required submit trusteeship agreement on SW Afr; (2) So Afr seriously concerned over tendency evidenced Court and other organs UN consider So Afr accountable for administration SW Afr to UN as successor body to League of Nations; (3) So Afr cld not accept provision in opinion re its obligation transmit petitions on SW Afr to UN in light its objection GA decision give hearing to Scott5 last year; (4) it wld be difficult So Afr indicate willingness transmit reports as such action wld constitute “reversal” Malan’s6 statement that since Court’s opinion was merely advisory So Afr not bound thereby. Your comments requested especially re (4) above.

[Page 478]

At your discretion you are requested utilize any suitable opportunity express informally to Ministry External Affairs US views re desirability So Afr indicate willingness submit reports, citing reasons set forth Deptel 17. While Dept hopes So Afr will decide transmit petitions SW Afr to UN, it is suggested you not emphasize this point at present in your discussions. If So Afr raises question, however, you may state that Dept hopes So Afr will carefully consider advisability compliance this portion Court’s opinion. It wld be in accordance with Court’s opinion for same body receiving reports to consider petitions under mandates procedure, which excluded oral hearings.

Memo describing Dept’s conversation with Jooste in detail fols.

Acheson
  1. Repeated to London as No. 725 and to USUN as No. 125.
  2. See Deptel 690, August 8, to London, p. 475.
  3. A lengthy memorandum of conversation recording the meeting is not printed (August 7, file no. 353/8–750). The participants included the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson).; G. Hayden Raynor, United Nations Adviser, Bureau of European Affairs; J. Jefferson Jones III, Deputy Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs; Ambassador Jooste; and W. Dirkse-van-Sichalkwyk, First Secretary of the South African Embassy.
  4. In the memorandum of conversation Assistant Secretary of State Hickerson is recorded as saying that the United States felt that it would he “highly desirable” for the Union Government to indicate its willingness to render annual reports, amplifying somewhat on the points (cited in Deptel 690, August 8) that this was necessary in order to forestall castigation in the General Assembly; to prevent South African isolation in the United Nations; and to maintain unity in the General Assembly with states newly emergent from colonial status, in light of the Far East crisis. Mr. Hickerson then developed the theme that:

    “… the General Assembly was emerging as one of the dominant organs of the United Nations and as a corollary to this development, it was necessary that all the members of the United Nations accept their ‘Obligations as members in a responsible manner, perhaps in a more responsible manner than they had evidenced in the past. Consequently, the United States expected to exert its influence to convince the member nations to fulfill their duties in a more responsible way in connection with all questions which came up for discussion in the General Assembly. It could therefore be hoped that if South Africa submitted reports, the action taken by the General Assembly on such reports would be more constructive than had perhaps been the case in the past.” (353/8–750) After further discussion, Mr. Hickerson closed the conversation with a statement that he “sincerely hoped that the Union would see its way clear to indicate its willingness to submit reports on South West Africa in accordance with the Court’s opinion”.

  5. The Rev. Michael Scott, an Anglican clergyman resident in South Africa who was a severe critic of Union racial policy; see p. 63.
  6. Daniel Malan, Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa.