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

UNP files, lot 60 D 268, “Indians in South Africa”

Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs (Wainhouse) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Murphy)¹

secret

[Washington,] December 31, 1953.

Questions Raised by Ambassador Jooste Regarding U.S. Position on Apartheid Case at 8th United Nations General Assembly

The memorandum of conversation between Ambassador Jooste and Mr. Hayden Raynor,² which is returned herewith, raises two questions. First, the Ambassador seeks an explanation as to why the United States Delegation “switched from a negative vote in the committee to an abstention in plenary on the provision continuing the commission.” Second, he states that he had been assured earlier in New York that the United States would oppose the continuation of the Apartheid Commission and had so reported to his Government which now wished to find out the reasons for the change in the United States position.

It is possible that Ambassador Jooste will request an appointment with you for the purpose of further discussion of these two matters. A copy of the resolution involved is attached for your use in any such conversation.³ It might also be desirable for you to invite Mr. Leonard Meeker, L/UNA, and Mr. Ward Allen, EUR, who were directly concerned with this case in New York, to attend any discussion you may have with Ambassador Jooste.

With respect to the first point raised by Ambassador Jooste, the following facts are relevant:

1. As the result of a Delegation meeting which considered the position paper on this item, a telegram was sent to the Department recommending an abstention on the draft resolution before the Ad Hoc Political Committee.⁴ In its reply the Department, on the direct decision of the Secretary, authorized the Delegation to abstain but suggested, in the event of a paragraph-by-paragraph vote, that the Delegation vote against paragraph 3(a) (i).⁵ (This provision, which followed the request that the Commission continue its study of the racial situation in South Africa, asked that it do so “with reference to the various implications of the situation on the populations affected;” the suggestion that the United States vote against this one provision came directly from the Secretary.) Otherwise the Delegation was authorized to abstain on all provisions of the resolution, including that one in effect continuing the commission for another year.

2. Following Delegation consideration of these instructions and before any voting took place in the Committee, the contents of the Department’s telegram were fully explained by Mr. Ward Allen to Mr. Jordaan (permanent South African representative to the UN), and the proposed US voting position made clear. Jordaan stated he would, of course, advise Ambassador Jooste immediately.⁶

3. The alleged inconsistency in the United States vote arose from the different way in which the resolution was divided, for purposes of paragraph-by-paragraph voting, in the committee and in the plenary.

(a) In the committee the resolution was divided so that the committee vote was taken at one time on all of the following parts of paragraph 3: “requests the Commission (a) to contine its study of the development of the racial situation in the Union of South Africa (i) with reference to the various implications of the situation on the populations affected.” Since the Department had suggested that the Delegation vote against paragraph 3(a) (i), the only way in which such a negative vote could be cast in these circumstances was to vote in the negative on the entire clause, even though this seemed also to imply a negative position on the other part of the clause, on which we would have abstained, had it been voted upon separately.

(b) In the plenary, however, the resolution was divided for purposes of paragraph-by-paragraph voting in a different way. Paragraph 3(a) (“Requests the Commission (a) to continue its study of the racial situation in the Union of South Africa”) was voted upon first, so that the United States abstained on this provision. Then paragraph 3(a) (i) (“with reference to the various implications of the situation on the populations affected”) was put to the vote, and our Delegation, in accordance with the Department’s suggestion, voted in the negative.

(In both Committee and plenary we abstained in the vote on the resolution as a whole.)

4. Following the vote in the plenary the South African Delegation asked our Delegation why the United States had changed its position respecting continuation of the Commission. Mr. Allen pointed out to Mr. Jordaan⁶ the difference in the way in which the resolution had been put to the vote in the committee and in the plenary together with the fact that, as previously explained to the South African Delegation, the United States desired to abstain on all parts of the 17-power resolution except for paragraph 3(a) (i) on which it voted negatively.

As for the second point raised by Ambassador Jooste, that is, that he was given assurances that the United States would oppose the continuation of the Commission, he was, of course, given no “asssurances”. In a preliminary conversation⁷ on various South African issues early in the session with Mr. Allen before the Delegation’s consideration of the apartheid item and before it was reached in the Committee, Ambassador Jooste was advised that the United States did not believe the Commission was useful or helpful (a position publicly stated in Committee by Mrs. Bolton) and that in the Department’s view we should oppose its continuance. (This was in accordance with the Department’s position paper.)⁸ It was agreed that further consultations between the two Delegations would be held when the item was reached in the Committee and specific proposals were made. Contact was maintained with the South African Delegation and when the two draft resolutions were introduced, it was advised that voting instructions had been requested from the Department. As stated above, the South African Delegation was subsequently advised prior to any voting of the United States voting position.

1. This memorandum was drafted by Brown (UNP) and cleared in draft by Meeker (L/UNA) and Allen (EUR).
2. Reference is to the conversation of Dec. 17, 1953, a summary of which is printed, supra.
3. Not printed.
4. Not printed; telegram Delga 322 from New York, Nov. 25, 1953. (845A.411/11–2553)
5. Telegram Gadel 107 to New York, Dec. 1, 1953, p. 1025.
6. No record of this conversation has been found in Department of State files.
6. No record of this conversation has been found in Department of State files.
7. Presumably, reference is to conversation between Allen and Jooste on Sept. 17, 1953. The memorandum of conversation by Allen, however, stated only that Allen outlined to Jooste the U.S. position on each of the three South African items on the General Assembly’s agenda. It contained no specific comments on the Commission in question. (745X.00/9–1753)
8. Dated Sept. 4, p. 1009.