315.3/10–553: Circular instruction
The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Offices 1
CA–1871. Executive Order 10422. By circular airgram of February 5, 1953,2 the Department informed certain American Diplomatic and Consular Officers of the background involved in the UN General Assembly consideration of personnel policies governing the United Nations Secretariat. Various aspects of this question are now before the Eighth Session of the General Assembly, and the Department considers it desirable to circulate information concerning developments in this matter since the previous communication.
The General Assembly, during the second part of its Seventh Session, debated at some length the report of the Secretary General on United Nations personnel policy. Thirty-seven delegations, including those of most of the larger nations, made statements. In general the viewpoint that the independence of the Secretariat required that the Secretary General continue to exercise responsibility for the selection of personnel without dictation from governments was supported. There was also general acceptance of the policy that the Secretary General should refrain from employing anyone who the preponderance of evidence indicates is engaging in activities aimed at subverting the government of a member state. No delegation expressed objection to the United States investigations under Executive Order 10422.
Opinion expressed during the General Assembly debate varied widely on the policy to be followed by the Secretary General in cases of refusal to testify before officially constituted national agencies investigating subversive activities and in cases where derogatory information [Page 353] relates to conduct that is not such as to constitute evidence of present subversive activity but rather the likelihood of engaging in such activity. In addition, many delegations doubted the power of the Secretary General to take summary termination action in any case that falls short of serious misconduct. A number of statements were quite critical of the Secretary General’s policies as expressed and as carried out in the dismissals that had taken place.
Largely as a result of strenuous United States efforts, the Assembly on April 1, 1953, rejected by a vote of 20–29–8 a resolution, sponsored by 12 members of the Asian-Arab bloc,3 the effect of which would have been to deny the Secretary General power to take further action in accordance with his announced policy until after a careful review of the whole matter by a small committee of the Assembly and consideration of the question by the Eighth Session, to which the committee was to report. On the same day the Assembly adopted the following resolution, which had the United States as one of its 13 co-sponsors:4
The General Assembly, Recalling the following provisions of Articles 100 and 101 of the Charter:
article 100
“1. In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization.
“2. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.
article 101
“1. The staff shall be appointed by the Secretary-General under regulations established by the General Assembly.
. . . . .5
“3. The paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency competence and integrity. Due regard shall be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible”, and
Having reviewed and considered the report of the Secretary-General on personnel policy (A/2364), [Page 354]
- 1.
- Expresses its confidence that the Secretary-General will conduct personnel policy with these considerations in mind;
- 2.
- Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its eighth session a report on the progress made in the conduct and development of personnel policy, together with the comments of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions thereon;
- 3.
- Invites the Secretary-General and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions to submit, after appropriate consultations with the administrative heads of the specialized agencies, their recommendations as to any further action that may be required of the General Assembly;
- 4.
- Calls upon all Members of the United Nations to assist the Secretary-General in the discharge of his responsibilities as chief administrative officer of the United Nations.
This resolution, while it did not specifically endorse the report of the Secretary General, nor the actions he had taken, kept the situation open and made it possible for him to carry out his duties in accordance with the policies he had stated, if he so desired. The new Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, who took office on April 10, 1953, made no commitments concerning the policy he would follow in this matter, making a remark in public that he would consider each case on its merits. After consideration of one case of an employee who had invoked the Fifth Amendment when being questioned by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee concerning her previous affiliations, he discharged the person.
This person, along with twenty others who had been discharged by the former Secretary General, appealed to the Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations. Most of the twenty-one cases involved United States nationals whose loyalty had been questioned. The Administrative Tribunal, established in 1949 despite efforts by the United States to head it off, at the Fourth Regular Session of the General Assembly, is empowered to “hear and pass judgment on applications alleging non-observance of contracts of employment of staff members of the Secretariat of the United Nations or of the terms of appointment of such staff members. The words ‘contracts’ and ‘terms of appointment’ include all pertinent regulations and rules in force at the time of alleged non-observance, including the staff pension regulations”.
The four members of the Tribunal who heard the cases were Lord Crook (United Kingdom), Mr. Bror Arvid Petren (Sweden), Mme. Paul Bastid (France), who is President of the Tribunal, and Mr. Omar Loutfi (Egypt).
The Tribunal upheld the action of the Secretary General in nine cases involving employees on temporary contracts, five of whom had invoked the Fifth Amendment before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. One case involving an employee on a permanent contract [Page 355] was remanded on procedural grounds to the Joint Appeals Board for a re-hearing. In ten cases involving employees on permanent contracts and one case involving an employee on a temporary contract, however, the Tribunal held that the action taken by the Secretary General was not in accord with the provisions of the staff regulations. All of the employees involved in these eleven cases had claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege when appearing before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. On the basis of these judgments, the seven who elected to receive indemnities in lieu of reinstatement were awarded amounts ranging from $6,000 to $40,000 by the Tribunal, and one individual was awarded her full pension rights. Reinstatement was ordered for four employees. The Secretary General announced on September 2, 1953, that, on the basis of his authority under the Tribunal’s Statute, he had concluded that reinstatement of these four individuals “would be inadvisable from the points of view which it is my duty to take into consideration”. He stated that he was informing the Tribunal of his decision and that “the Tribunal will determine the compensation as provided for in the Statute”. He added that in all eleven cases the question of compensation would come before the General Assembly “which is the organ that is responsible for appropriating the funds necessary for the implementation of the decisions of the Tribunal”.
Since announcement of the Administrative Tribunal’s judgments, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee has reopened hearings on the matter, inquiring particularly into the basis for the indemnities awarded. In addition, a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Government Operations has begun an inquiry into charges of subversive activity in the United Nations Secretariat.
Another pertinent development is the passage by the Senate on June 8, 1953, of S. 3, which would make it a criminal offense, under penalty of a $10,000 fine or 10 years imprisonment or both, for a United States citizen to accept employment with one of the United Nations agencies without first receiving a certificate of security clearance from the Attorney General. United States citizens now on the staffs of the agencies would be subjected to a like penalty if they refused to supply information stipulated in the bill. The House Committee has not yet considered the measure. The Departments of State and Justice have recommended against enactment of S. 3, arguing that the procedures under Executive Order 10422 should be given a fair trial.
On June 2, 1953, Executive Order 10459, an amendment to Executive Order 10422 of January 9, 1953, was issued by the President. The principal changes provided for by the amendment are: (1) establishment in the Civil Service Commission of an International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board to assume the functions given by the [Page 356] original order to the Regional Loyalty and Loyalty Review Boards which went out of existence as a result of revision of the Federal loyalty program; and (2) establishment of a simplified investigative procedure for persons to be employed by an international organization for no more than ninety days. Investigations have been proceeding under the Executive Orders for several months and as of October 2, 1953, final reports on approximately 2176 cases had been transmitted to the international organizations concerned.
The Department is gravely concerned over the Administrative Tribunal decisions6 and is preparing to do everything possible to seek correction of the situation through General Assembly action. Certain foreign service posts may soon be asked to make representations to the Governments to which they are accredited, seeking support for the United States position, details of which will be sent at that time.
- Drafted by James F. Anderson, Acting Assistant Chief of the Division of International Administration, and Betty Jane Jones, UN Affairs Staff. Sent to 61 posts.↩
- Ante, p. 325.↩
- The 12-power resolution was proposed by Afghanistan, Burma, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen. (UN Doc. A/L. 145/Rev. 4)↩
- The 13-power resolution was an amended version of a three-power resolution proposed by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States as UN Doc. A/L.146. The other sponsors of the final resolution (UN Doc. A/L.146/Rev. 1) were Belgium, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, and Sweden. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly as Resolution 708 (VII) by a vote of 41 to 13 with 4 abstentions.↩
- Ellipses in the source text.↩
- Made Aug. 16, 21, 1953; texts of the decisions, totalling 38, are in Department of State file 315.3. The documents themselves are unindexed and filed according to date.↩