IO Files: US/A/2911
United States Delegation Position Paper
restricted
[New
York,] November 28, 1950.
Freedom of Information: Report of the Third
Committee1
The Third Committee adopted three resolutions under the above agenda
item. A separate position paper is attached on each resolution.
[Page 534]
The United States should vote against plenary discussion of the Third
Committee report. If there is discussion, it will not be necessary
for the United States to make a statement on any of the
resolutions.2
[Attachment 1]
United States Delegation Position Paper
Freedom of Information: Interference With
Radio Signals
1. United States Position
The United States should vote in favor of the resolution as
adopted by the Third Committee. Although the original text of
the Economic and Social Council has been modified by the
addition of language which is not strictly relevant to the basic
intent of the resolution, the additions are acceptable and the
resolution conforms to the United States views on this subject.
Under this resolution the General Assembly would condemn radio
jamming, invite all Member Governments to refrain from such
interference, invite all Governments to refrain from unfair or
slanderous broadcasts, and invite Member States to facilitate
the reception and transmission of the United Nations official
broadcasts.
2. History in Committee
This resolution, which was transmitted by ECOSOC to the General Assembly
on the recommendation of the Subcommission on Freedom of
Information, was strongly opposed by the Soviet Delegations on
the ground that it constituted an interference in their domestic
affairs. They attacked the Voice of America and other foreign
broadcasting services for disseminating false, distorted, and
subversive reports, but made no specific defense of the practice
of jamming.
The Arab, Indian, and several Latin American delegations, while
in general agreement with the original resolution, indicated
that they felt it to be one-sided and sponsored an amendment
inviting governments to refrain from “unfair attacks or slanders
against other people anywhere”. This amendment was adopted by a
large majority, and the United States voted in favor of it as a
means of ensuring the largest possible majority for the
resolution as a whole.
The Chilean Delegation, which sponsored the ECOSOC text in the Committee,
also added a provision inviting governments to “facilitate
[Page 535]
the reception and
transmission of the United Nations official broadcasts”. This
was also adopted with United States support.
The Committee rejected a Saudi Arabian amendment requesting
governments which broadcast to other peoples “not to offend
their sensibilities”, the United States voting in the
negative.
Also rejected by the Committee, the United States voting in the
negative, was a Lebanese amendment which read “Invites all
member governments to take the necessary steps within their
competence to prevent the diffusion of false or distorted
reports likely to injure friendly relations between states”.
The resolution, as amended, was adopted by 39–5, the United
States voting in the affirmative.
3. Possible Developments in
Plenary
It is possible that the above Saudi Arabian and Lebanese
amendments will be introduced in Plenary, although their
sponsors have indicated that they are not likely to introduce
them. If they are reintroduced, the United States should vote
against both. The Saudi Arabian amendment is objectionable
because of its vagueness and its generally restrictive
character. The Lebanese amendment, which repeats language from
resolutions previously adopted by the General Assembly on the
subject of false or distorted reports, is objectionable in that
it is not only unnecessary, but it also casts an element of
doubt on the basic intent of the resolution. It might even be
interpreted to sanction jamming of foreign radio broadcasts as a
means of preventing “the diffusion of false or distorted
reports”.
[Attachment 2]
United States Delegation Position Paper
Freedom of Information: Question of the
Freedom of Information and of the Press in Times of
Emergency
1. United States Position
The United States should vote in favor of the resolution as
adopted by the Third Committee. Under this resolution, the
General Assembly would recommend to all Member States that, when
they are compelled to declare a state of emergency, measures to
limit freedom of information and of the press should be taken
only in the most exceptional circumstances and then only to the
extent strictly required by the situation.
2. History in Committee
During its consideration of the text as adopted by the
Subcommission on Freedom of Information and transmitted by the
ECOSOC
[Page 536]
to the General
Assembly, the Third Committee adopted two amendments which tend
to weaken the already somewhat vague ECOSOC text. The first resulted in the deletion of
the words “in all circumstances” which appeared at the end of
the first paragraph; the second changed the words “have been
placed” to “might be placed” in the second paragraph.
These amendments were strongly supported by the Arab and some
Latin American delegations. The United States Delegation voted
against these changes, but supported the amended text, since it
retains the essence of the original proposal.
The resolution, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 38–5–5, the
United States voting in the affirmative.
3. Possible Developments in
Plenary
It is unlikely that any attempt will be made to modify the Third
Committee text in Plenary. If, however, a proposal is made to
revert to the original ECOSOC
wording, the United States should support the proposal.
[Attachment 3]
United States Delegation Position Paper
Freedom of Information: Draft Convention on
Freedom of Information
1. United States Position
The United States should abstain in the vote on this resolution
by which the General Assembly would appoint a fifteen-state
committee, including the United States, to prepare a draft
convention on freedom of information, request the committee to
report to the Economic and Social Council next summer, and
request the Council, if it sees fit, to convene a conference of
plenipotentiaries to prepare and sign a convention. Many of the
delegations which favor the completion of the convention look
upon it as a means of imposing limitations on the work of
foreign correspondents and large news agencies and not as an
instrument to extend or safeguard freedom of information. It is
the United States view that any convention on freedom of
information which is completed at the present time is likely to
restrict rather than promote freedom of information. The United
States should not vote against the proposal, however, since it
voted in favor of a series of Lebanese amendments which had the
effect of making the present resolution far less objectionable
than the original proposal.
2. History in Committee
This resolution had its origin in a joint proposal of Chile,
Cuba, Egypt, France, and the Netherlands. The original proposal
was much
[Page 537]
less
flexible, in that it did not provide for the possibility that
the committee, or at least a substantial minority on the
committee, might conclude that it would not be advisable to call
a plenipotentiary conference to complete the convention and it
gave no discretion to the Economic and Social Council concerning
the advisability of calling the conference.
The present wording of the resolution is the result of a series
of Lebanese amendments which were supported by the United States
and a number of other delegations not in favor of the original
text in order to make the resolution more flexible.
A prior United States amendment which would have postponed
further consideration of the convention until the General
Assembly had taken definite action on the Covenant on Human
Rights was rejected by a vote of 14–25–10.3
The resolution, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 35–0–15,
with the United States abstaining.
3. Possible Developments in
Plenary
It is not likely that any attempt will be made in plenary to
amend the resolution.
