340.1–AG/9–2250: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Delegation at the United Nations 1


309. Below is Department position on human rights in satellite countries.

[Page 57]

The Problem

To determine the United States position for the Fifth General Assembly regarding the agenda item ‘Observance in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom’.


In deference to UK opposition to appointment of Committee of Jurists,2 the United States Delegation should support and in its discretion may cosponsor a proposal which would:
condemn the three satellite Governments for failing to cooperate with the Assembly in its consideration of this problem, and for their refusal to carry out their obligations to submit to the Peace Treaty proceedings as determined in the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice;3
conclude that this attitude of deliberate noncooperation casts serious doubts upon the denials by Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania of the charges made against them;
call upon Members, particularly parties to the Peace Treaties, to submit to the Secretary General of the United Nations and to all Members relevant evidence concerning the charges against the three states.
We would be willing to support an inquiry by the Assembly into the substance of the charge if a consensus should develop in the Assembly in favor of such an inquiry. In fact we would be willing to take initiative on matter if strong support for inquiry develops. US shld make this position clear.
The position of the US should be concerted with that of the other interested parties to the Treaties of Peace, particularly the UK, Australia, and Canada.”

To give effect to rec 3 advisable initiate immediate consultations with UK and other Dels with view to ascertaining their final position and to developing acceptable draft res.4

  1. This telegram was drafted in the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs and was concurred in by the Bureau of United Nations Affairs, the Bureau of European Affairs, the Office of the Legal Adviser, and the Office of Eastern European Affairs.
  2. Regarding the British views under reference here, see footnote 5, supra.
  3. Regarding the International Court of Justice’s opinions of March 30 and July 18, 1950, under reference here, see the editorial notes, pp. 12 and 37.
  4. Regarding the resolution on human rights in the Eastern European satellites adopted by the General Assembly on November 3, see the editorial note, p. 59.