IO Files: US/A/C.4/189
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. G. Hayden Raynor of the Advisory Staff of the United States Delegation
| Participants: | Ambassador G. P. Jooste—Union of South Africa |
| Mr. G. Hayden Raynor—United States Delegation |
I met Ambassador Jooste in the Lounge at Lake Success this afternoon by appointment in order to discuss this with him. Mr. Gerig was unable to be present as he had to sit in the Fourth Committee.
The Ambassador repeated views which he had expressed to me the other day that the preferable course of action from the South African point of view would be for the Assembly to pass a simple resolution, providing (1) it had considered the Court’s opinion, (2) it accepted it, and (3) it referred the opinion to the Union for the Union to consider and determine its position thereon. He said he understood this might be unacceptable as some people would view this as simply postponing the entire issue for twelve months. He stressed that what he hopes could be obtained is a resolution which will keep the matter flexible so that, for a change, negotiations with South Africa could start out on aspects of the case on which there would be a meeting of minds between the Union and the UN. (Presumably the material covered in the proposal given to us ten days ago.)
The Ambassador indicated great importance would be attached in the Union to the Assembly accepting the opinion in toto, provided it desires to accept it, in view of the part of the opinion relating to a trusteeship agreement. I showed the Ambassador a copy of the draft resolution with several alternative paragraphs as transmitted to the Delegation recently by the Department.1 The Ambassador’s comments on this draft were as follows: He feels paragraph 1 on the first page should be deleted as it is extraneous to the consideration of the advisory opinion which is the business this year, and that the reference contained therein to the trusteeship agreement resolution2 will make more difficult the development of a reasonable attitude on this question in the Union. He thinks it would be perfectly appropriate to start the resolution with the present numbered paragraph 2. He had no comment or objections on paragraphs numbered 2 and 3. He feels strongly, however, that paragraph 4 should be eliminated as it anticipates a decision that the Union will resume the filing of reports, [Page 496] and unduly stresses one aspect of the Court’s opinion. His general remarks mentioned above, relating to flexibility, apply specifically to this paragraph.
In the Ambassador’s opinion, there should be a new paragraph 4 which would (a) indicate that the Assembly accepts (or approves) the opinion of the Court, and (b) Calls upon (urges or invites) the Union to implement it. This might then be followed by the first alternative of paragraph 5. The Ambassador did raise the question, however, whether it would be wise to put in paragraph 5 initially because of the various amendments which always come in. He felt that perhaps it might better be submitted at a later stage, as a compromise. He said he wanted to make one strong point with regard to the composition of the Committee and that if we want to get cooperation from the Union, and he hoped that was possible, that India not be a member of the Committee. He thinks, however, that the Far East should be represented. He said that he had given some thought to Burma, which might be a possibility, but thought that the best Far Eastern representative from their point of view would be Thailand. In answer of my inquiry, he thought it would be desirable for the United States to be a member.
Throughout the conversation I stressed the fact that the United States did not always have much influence in the Fourth Committee and that until we had consulted, we did not know whether or not a resolution of this type would be successful. He discounts our lack of influence and repeatedly made the point that if we made our position very clear and strong, and gave no indication that we would compromise, such a resolution could get through. In referring to the United States, he also includes the United Kingdom, the old Commonwealth, and the Western European countries. I told him that I felt certain we were in a mood to do everything we could for him but that he must not set his hopes too high in view of the atmosphere in the Assembly and particularly in the Fourth Committee. I said I had been talking to him very frankly as to our position and my objective had been really to probe his mind so as to get a clear indication of what he felt would be best from the point of view of a constructive resolution which we hoped would have results. I think the comments related above give this indication. I should add that present instructions would not permit the Union to go along with the above, and are to the effect that they should strongly oppose the findings of the Court. Apparently they intend to base a good part of their case, if [Page 497] they take this line, on the liquidating meeting of the League.3 The Ambassador, however, seems hopeful that he and Minister Donges will be able to have their instructions modified if sentiment could be developed for a resolution along the lines discussed above.
- See Department’s telegram Gadel 125, November 17, p. 493.↩
- This refers to resolution 65 (I) of December 14. 1946.↩
- In a final act at a session in Geneva April 8–18, 1946, the League’s Assembly declared the League of Nations dissolved. At the same session (resolutions were approved transferring the League’s assets and certain technical and nonpoilitical functions of the League to the United Nations, in accordance with a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted on February 12, 1946. According to the General Assembly resolution political (functions or powers of the League of Nations were to be assumed by the United Nations only with the consent of the General Assembly or the appropriate United Nations organ.↩