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

IO files, SD/A/C.4/99

¹

Draft of a Position Paper Prepared in the Department of State for the United States Delegation to the Seventh Regular Session of the General Assembly²

restricted

[Washington,] October 6, 1952.

Transmission and Discussion of Political Information Under Article 73(e)³

the problem

What position should the United States take with respect to the discussion of political conditions in particular non-self-governing territories when such a specific item has not been placed on the agenda, and to the related problem of the transmission of political information under Article 73(e)?

recommendations

1. In view of the divisive effect of previous debates on this issue, the Delegation should seek to avert a discussion in the Fourth Committee which would tend to establish or lead to the introduction of a resolution explicitly stating the Committee’s competence to discuss political affairs in particular non-self-governing territories. Should such a resolution nevertheless be introduced, the Delegation should exert every effort to secure its withdrawal.

2. The Delegation should be guided by the view of the United States that the General Assembly is competent, under Article 10 of the Charter, to discuss and make recommendations on conditions in non-self-governing territories generally, including political questions arising out of Articles 10, 14, and 73.

3. The Delegation should bear in mind that the proper and most orderly way to initiate discussion of political conditions in non-self-governing territories is the placing of such items on the Fourth Committee’s agenda in the normal manner.

4. With respect to the related question of the transmission of political information, the Delegation should maintain the position that the transmission of such information is not obligatory under Article 73(e), but that the United States voluntarily submits political information and hopes other Administering Authorities will do so.

comment

The question of the Competence of the Fourth Committee to discuss and make recommendations on political conditions in particular non-self-governing territories was, until 1951, associated with the more specific question of the transmission of political information under Article 73(e). During the Sixth General Assembly, however, the disposition of the Moroccan question in the General Committee and the Plenary Assembly led in the Fourth Committee to references to political conditions in Morocco and in turn to acrimonious debate of the broader competence issue. In light of the strong views of the Arab-Asian bloc, therefore, the question of the General Assembly’s competence to discuss political conditions in non-self-governing territories may well arise again.

Recommendation 1

The circumstances under which the question of the Fourth Committee’s competence arose at the Sixth Assembly and the bitterness of the ensuing debate clearly indicates the desirability of forestalling, if possible, its recurrence this year.⁴

The Guatemalan delegate commented on political and other conditions in British Honduras, as did the Egyptian delegate with respect to Morocco. On points of order, the delegates of the United Kingdom and France protested the discussion of political conditions in non-self-governing territories. Following the French intervention, the Iraqi delegate proposed that the Fourth Committee vote immediately on a draft resolution which “resolves that it is empowered to discuss political matters and political aspects in regard to non-self-governing territories”. The French Delegation shortly afterwards withdrew from the meeting. During the course of the debate it was evident that the Iraqi proposal received considerable support, and that its adoption with minor amendments proposed by Ecuador was virtually a certainty. Subsequently, the Iraqi resolution was withdrawn and the United Kingdom, French, and Iraqi Delegations agreed to a ruling by the Chair that the discussion of political subjects be closely correlated with economic, social and educational conditions in the territories. Thus, a middle position between the extremes taken by some administering powers—i.e., that the discussion of political conditions amounts to an amendment of the Charter (UK), that it is unconstitutional (France)—and on the other hand, by certain non-administering Members—who believe that the right of the Fourth Committee to do so should be asserted—served to prevent a decision by vote which most probably would have gone in favor of the latter.

In the event that a resolution is introduced affirming the competence of the Fourth Committee, the Delegation should bear in mind that a decision against the administering Members as represented by the United Kingdom, France and Belgium would most likely harden their views on this issue and perhaps prejudice their willingness to cooperate with the Fourth Committee. The Delegation should therefore utilize every appropriate means to ensure the resolution’s withdrawal.

Recommendation 2

Under Article 73, administering members undertake to ensure the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of non-self-governing territories. They “accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end … to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions.…” By the inclusion of these provisions in the Charter, the international community has registered its concern, in a multilateral contractual undertaking, for the welfare, including the political advancement, of the inhabitants of non-self-governing territories. The obligations undertaken as a result of the provisions of Article 73 differ in no way from other obligations imposed upon Members by the Charter. It follows that the General Assembly, acting in conformity with Article 10 of the Charter, “may discuss any questions on any matters within the scope of the present Charter … and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.”

There would seem to be no doubt that the General Assembly, under Article 10, has the right to discuss and make recommendations on political conditions in particular non-self-governing territories and, without question, the General Assembly would so decide. The Delegation might bear in mind, however, that the United States has consistently taken the view that it would be unwise for the General Assembly or Fourth Committee to make recommendations with respect to specific territories, since such recommendations would undoubtedly provoke a degree of friction detrimental to constructive work by the Fourth Committee.

Recommendation 3

There has been a tendency in the past for some delegations to use the Report of the Assembly’s Special Committee on Information as a point of departure for the discussion of political conditions in particular territories. Such action serves to reduce the effectiveness and to obscure the purpose of the Assembly’s agenda. The Delegation should bear in mind, therefore, that the proper and most orderly way to initiate discussion of political conditions in non-self-governing territories is the placing of such items on the agenda of the Assembly and their allocation to the Fourth Committee.

Recommendation 4

The United States has consistently maintained the position that the transmission of political information is not required under the provisions of Article 73(e). At the same time, the United States voluntarily transmits political information on its territories, and hopes other administering Members will do so with respect to their territories. Although Denmark regularly transmits comparable data, the voluntary submission of political information by Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands and France has been sporadic. Both the United Kingdom and Belgium oppose the provision of such information on either a mandatory or voluntary basis, maintaining inter alia that to do so would constitute an extra-legal amendment of the Charter.

The General Assembly has, however, on several occasions expressed itself on the question. At its second session, it noted the voluntary submission of political information by some Members, considered this to be in conformity with the Charter and, therefore, to be encouraged (Res. 144(II)). In Resolution 327(IV), the Assembly expressed the hope that information on government would be voluntarily submitted.

The Assembly will consider at the present session a resolution on this subject adopted by the Human Rights Commission and referred by ECOSOC without comment to the General Assembly. (For position in Resolution B in Self-Determination of Peoples and Nations, see document SD/A/277 included in the Plenary Book of Instructions.) Should this or other resolutions bearing on the question of the submission of political information be debated in the Fourth Committee, the Delegation should take the position that it would be unwise to place such submission on other than a voluntary basis. Accordingly, a resolution which would “recommend” the voluntary transmission of political information would be unacceptable and would undoubtedly elicit a strong reaction on the part of some administering powers.

1. This was one of 16 papers in a Position Book entitled “Instructions to the United States Delegation to the Seventh Regular Session of the General Assembly Committee 4 (Trusteeship)”. This and the Position Books for other Sessions of the General Assembly are in the IO files.

2. The Fourth Committee had a continuous existence going back to 1946 and coterminous with that of the General Assembly itself. Likewise its legislative life was coterminous with the sessional life of the General Assembly, in the case of the Seventh Regular Session, from Oct. 14, 1951 to Dec. 21, 1952. Unpublished documentation relating to Fourth Committee matters is principally in file 320 (General Assembly and its Committees), file 320.14 (non-self-governing territories subjects), and file 350 (trusteeship matters), in the Department of State central decimal files; in the IO files proper and in IO files, lot 71 D 440 (files pertaining to U.S. Delegations to the General Assembly, 1946–1965); and in the ODA files (lots 60 D 512, 62 D 182, 62 D 225, and 62 D 228).

   The U.S. Delegate on the Fourth Committee was always a Presidentially appointed member of the U.S. Delegation to the General Assembly, who, at the Seventh Regular Session, was Philip C. Jessup, Ambassador at Large. Jessup was closely assisted by Ambassador John J. Muccio, a senior adviser to the Delegation. Other advisers included Benjamin Gerig, Robert R. Robbins and Eric Stein, all from the Office of Dependent Area Affairs, of which Gerig was Director.

3. Marginal notation at top of the page: “Subject to final clearance”. In this instance the paper never did receive final clearance, an unusual occurrence. See the Oct. 23 memorandum, infra.
4. For documentation on this subject, see Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. ii, pp. 655 ff.