Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

IO files, SD/A/AC.35/34

¹

Position Paper Prepared by the Department of State for the United States Delegation to the Third Session of the Committee on Information From Non-Self-Governing Territories²

confidential

[Washington,] September 8, 1952.

Item 9: Future of the Committee on Information From Non-Self-Governing Territories

the problem

The problem is to determine the position of the United States Representative to the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories on the Future of the Committee.

recommendation

The United States Delegation should support and/or initiate a proposal for the continuation of the Committee for an additional three-year period under its present terms of reference.

background

The Charter makes no provision for a body to examine and make recommendations on the information which administering Members transmit on non-self-governing territories under Article 73(e). But by resolution the General Assembly in 1946 voted to establish a Committee for this purpose, composed of eight administering and eight elected Members, and in 1947 and again in 1948 voted to re-establish the Committee, for one year. In 1949 the Assembly established the Special Committee on Information Transmitted under Article 73(e) of the Charter for a three-year term and provided for the re-consideration of the future of the Special Committee and its terms of reference in 1952. The United States initiated this proposal as an alternative to establishing a permanent Committee.

When the Committee first met in 1947, it was governed by terms of reference which empowered it to examine the Secretary-General’s summaries and analyses of information transmitted, but to make, with respect to this information, recommendations only of a procedural character. The 1948 and 1949 session of the Special Committee, however, operated under new terms of reference which empowered the Committee to make, in addition to procedural recommendations, recommendations of substance provided these were limited to economic, social, and educational matters and were not directed to particular territories. Not until the 1949 session, however, did the Special Committee, or, indeed the General Assembly, venture to make substantive recommendations. In establishing the Committee in 1949 for a three-year term the General Assembly gave it substantially the same terms of reference as those enjoyed by the Committee of 1948 and 1949, maintaining the previous limited recommendations on substantive recommendations.

In 1949 the Assembly also adopted a joint United States-Mexico Resolution to have the Committee give particular attention to one aspect of conditions in non-self-governing territories each year during its three-year tenure. In 1950, the Committee discussed educational conditions in non-self-governing territories and prepared a report which was favorably received. In 1951 the Committee gave major emphasis to economic problems and development. At its present session the Committee will give major attention to social conditions.

The Committee in 1951 also completed work on the revision of the Standard Form, which is the “topical outline for the guidance of members in submitting information under Article 73(e).”

In addition to discussions on the educational, economic and social conditions, the Committee has dealt with problems with political implications. Among these are “the application of the Declaration of Human Rights in Non-Self-Governing Territories”; “the factors which should be taken into account in determining if a territory is or is not a territory which has not achieved a full measure of self-government”; and “the question of the cessation of information on Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles.”

attitude of the administering authorities

The United Kingdom, Belgium and France have participated in the work of the Committee only with considerable reservations. They have consistently advocated a very narrow interpretation of the functions of the Committee, insisting that they should remain procedural. Their representatives have stated their reservations as to the legality of the Committee at each of its past two sessions.

Recent conversations with representatives of these three members have indicated their tentative views in regard to the extension of the Committee’s life. The United Kingdom has stated that it considered the extension of the Committee inevitable. It would participate in the same way as in the past if the Committee’s life is extended but would oppose any extension of the Committee’s functions, and would abstain on a General Assembly Resolution to extend the life of the Committee with its present functions.

The French representative has stated that its Government has not decided its position. He feels, however, that the Government would either abstain or vote against a Resolution to extend the life of the Committee with its present functions, and will certainly vote against a Resolution which would extend its functions.

The Belgium representatives have said that their Government would vote against any proposal to re-establish the Committee whether or not its functions were extended. They would probably participate if the Committee’s functions were not extended but would not participate if the Committee’s functions were appreciably extended, or if any aspects of Belgium’s administration of the Congo were discussed.

The Netherlands Government in a recent note to the Department stated its opinion that the Administering Powers should proceed on the assumption that the Committee will be maintained. It considers that the Committee had done good and useful work and that on the whole the discussions in the Committee were matter of fact and observations were made which more than once proved to be of value to the Administering Powers. The note further stated that one of the advantages of the Committee, probably due to its balanced membership, is that its activities exercise a favorable influence on the work of the Fourth Committee.

attitude of the administering authorities

Non-Administering Members, who, in the General Assembly, outnumber administering Members in a ratio of 52–8, have generally favored making the Special Committee a permanent organ. There have also been attempts on the part of some to give the Committee wider powers, including the right to receive petitions and send visiting missions to non-self-governing territories and generally to make the Special Committee as far as possible the counterpart of the Trusteeship Council.

past united states position

The United States originally opposed, in 1946, the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee. The United States supported its continuance in 1947, and, in 1948, was the author of a compromise proposal adopted by the Special Committee and by the General Assembly that the Committee meet again in 1949 “without prejudice as to the future”.

In 1949 the United States Delegation to the Special Committee was instructed to “initiate or co-sponsor and actively support” a proposal for the establishment on a three-year basis of a Special Committee similar to the 1948 Committee. This was to be without prejudice to the re-examination of the whole issue in 1952. The United States should, however, vote against any proposal to make the Committee permanent or to alter its previous balanced composition and terms of reference.

The United States position was based on the following consideration:

1. Since General Assembly consideration of, and recommendations concerning, the information transmitted under Article 73(e) could not be prevented in any case, there was an advantage to administering Members in having this information considered in the first instance by a balanced Special Committee.

2. In view of this anticipated pressure for the establishment of a permanent Committee, the three-year proposal seemed the best compromise and the one most likely to command the necessary support. Denmark and New Zealand, among the administering Members, were reported ready to support this compromise.

It was agreed further that the United States, in the interests of directing the Committee away from purely propaganda speeches should take the leadership in promoting constructive substantive discussion and to this end might explore with other delegations the possibility of the Committee’s concentrating, during each of the next three years on one of the three functional fields—economic, social, or educational conditions—covered by the Article 73(e) information.

discussion of recommendation

Sufficient support for this proposal might be obtained from the more moderate non-administering Members to make this an acceptable alternative to the establishment of the Committee on a permanent basis over the objections of the Administering Members. This proposal would enable the Committee to continue its procedure of examining one major aspect of conditions in non-self-governing territories at each of its sessions. The proposal would have the added advantage of providing a further trial period as a basis for recommendations at such time as the General Conference for the review of the Charter is convened (1955).³

1. This was one of 15 papers in a Position Book entitled “Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories (Third Session) 1952”. This and the Position Books for other sessions are found in the IO files and in the ODA files, lot 62 D182 (for the First through Ninth Sessions, 1950–1958).

2. For the background of this Committee, see below, “Background”. The Committee’s Third Session extended from Sept. 11 to Oct. 7, 1952; it met at the Headquarters of the United Nations, New York. The U.S. Representative on the Committee was BENJAMIN GERIG, Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs; the Alternate U.S. Representative was William I. Cargo, Deputy Director of the Office of Dependent Areas.

   Documentation relating to this Committee and issues considered by it (not just the 1952 session) is in file 320.14, the IO files, and the ODA files (particularly lot 62 D 182 and lot 62 D 225).

3. The Committee on Information at its Third Session discussed at considerable length the question of its future; and finally adopted by a vote of 13–3 (Belgium, France, United Kingdom)–0 a resolution proposed by the United States to extend the Committee for an additional 3-year period under its current terms of reference. An Egyptian amendment to the U.S. resolution which would have added a fourth year was defeated by a vote of 8–8(US)–0. Earlier a proposal to reconstitute the Committee on a permanent basis was defeated by a vote of 7–8(US)–1, Cuba having chosen to abstain rather than support the resolution because it had been initiated by the Soviet Union. (Position Paper for the U.S. Delegation to the Seventh Regular Session of the General Assembly, “Question of the Renewal of the Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories”, Oct. 28, 1952, Doc. SD/A/C.4/114)