Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Africa and South Asia, Volume XI, Part 1

320/11–452: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations¹

confidential

Washington, November 4, 1952—12:33 p.m.

Gadel 35. Dept requests that you substitute the following for the position paper on the Indian item (SD/A/C.1/395, Oct. 5/52).²

1. We shld continue to try to persuade South Africa not to press for discussion and vote on Assembly competence as a separate item.

2. If the question of competence is raised by South Africa in Committee before discussion, the United States should vote that the Assembly is competent to discuss the question.

3. On the substance of the item, we should seek to obtain a moderate, generalized resolution not specifically directed at South Africa. If the question of the competence of the General Assembly to adopt such a resolution is raised, the United States should vote in favor of such competence.

4. If a resolution directed solely at South Africa seems likely to be adopted, and the competence of the General Assembly to adopt such a resolution is raised, the United States should take the position that it would have preferred reference of this question to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion; that, from consultations with a number of other delegations, it has learned that, although there are strongly-held opposing views concerning the competence of the General Assembly, there are also strong objections to seeking an advisory opinion; that, in these circumstances, the U.S. will not itself press for Court reference; but that, in view of the conflicting views on competence and its own doubts about the wisdom of the General Assembly’s enacting a resolution directed solely at South Africa, the U.S. will abstain on the question of competence.

5. If the General Assembly votes that it has competence to adopt a resolution directed solely at South Africa, the question of whether the United States should abstain or vote against such a resolution will depend upon its substance. If the resolution is restrained in tone asking South Africa to honor its UN obligations, the United States should abstain because of its doubts about the wisdom of this approach. If the language of the resolution condemns South Africa and is generally so strong that it might do positive harm, the United States should vote against it. The Department should be consulted concerning the vote on particular resolutions.

6. The United States should not take an active role in the discussion of this item. However, after explaining our position in general terms in consultations with key delegations from other countries, the U.S. Delegation should seek to induce a friendly delegation (perhaps Latin American) to introduce a moderate, generalized resolution. Whenever necessary, we should make clear in the General Assembly and to other delegations that the United States is strongly opposed to such discriminatory legislation, but that it is concerned over the wisdom of the proposed approach, and troubled over the sharp differences of opinion on competence within the Assembly. It is clear that in its discussion and action the General Assembly should earnestly seek to avoid ex-ascerbating this situation.³

Bruce

1. This telegram was drafted by Hickerson (UNA) and cleared in draft with Fisher (L), Bonbright (EUR), and Bruce (U). Hickerson initialed for all the clearing officers.
2. Reference is to paper entitled, “The Question of Race Conflict in the Union of South Africa,” p. 938.
3. Subsequently, these six points became the new U.S. position paper, dated Nov. 10, 1952, on the question of race conflict in South Africa (SD/A/C.1/395/Rev. 1; copy located in UNP files, lot 60 D 268, “Indians in South Africa”).