Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II

184. Remarks by the Secretary of State, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, September 23, 1960, 3:30 p.m.¹

New York, September 23, 1960, 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I too have to apologize, as did your chairman, for the great lateness of this lunch. And because of the shortage of time that has developed, and the fact that I have had to cancel out a few appointments that I had earlier in the afternoon—and I have to keep one very important one at four o’clock² —I am going to cut my opening remarks very short.

I assume that what is on the minds of all of you, and on which I am sure I would be asked in a first question, is what is my reaction to the speech which carried on for some two hours and ended only a very short time ago.³

I think it would be very foolish of me to try to give you a thoroughly thought-through reaction to the many facets of that speech which developed during the course of those two hours. However, I do want to give you one or two very quick reactions: (1) It was an all-out attack, a real declaration of war against the structure, the personnel, and the location of the United Nations.

With respect to that first comment, I would like to add this: Immediately after the speech concluded I went behind the rostrum to Secretary General Hammarskjold’s office. He and the President of the General Assembly, Mr. Boland, were there. I took to him a letter which I had in my pocket and which I will read you in a moment. The first question that I asked him was whether or not under the procedural rules of the United Nations it was possible to call for an immediate vote of confidence in the Secretary General. That is what I would have liked to have seen done, if it had been possible.

We examined carefully whether that could be done, and found that under the procedural rules that have been set up, it could not be done without bringing in a separate resolution which would have to go through the normal procedure.

I then read to him this letter, which I am going to read to you:

(Reading)

“Excellency:

“This is in response to your letter of September 20, 1960 referring to the General Assembly resolution of September 20⁴ which appealed to ‘all Member Governments for urgent voluntary contributions to a United Nations Fund for the Congo’ for which you estimate a need of $100,000,000.

“My Government is prepared to respond to your request and is immediately making an advance contribution of $5,000,000 on the assumption that contributions will also be forthcoming from other Governments. Additional contributions will be made as specific plans and requirements are development by the United Nations.

“No decision can be made at this time concerning the total amount which the United States is prepared to contribute to the United Nations Fund for the Congo because of conditions established by United States legislation. In particular, existing legislation under which funds are now available to the United States Government provides that the United States contribution will not exceed 40% of the total made available to the United Nations for this purpose.

“Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration:”

I then handed him a check for $5 million, and told him that if I could express my confidence in his activities in no other way I felt that at least I could show my gratitude toward what I consider a very able job done, and I could only repeat the words of the President, of yesterday,⁵ in which he expressed faith that the Secretary General was carrying out his mandate from the United Nations in an effective and intelligent and positive way.

The second comment has to do with the the colonial issue. There, I am handicapped by the fact that there were two documents which were circulated with the copies of Mr. Khrushchev’s speech: One, a declaration in connection with the colonial nations, or colonial body; and the second, a statement with regard to disarmament.⁶

Unhappily, there was no time even to glance at those documents, so that I don’t feel that I can properly comment on the full nature of Mr. Khrushchev’s offering this morning. I can say though that my first impression was that this was an incitement to immediate rebellion on the part of all remaining colonial entities, and was a pretty inflammatory speech from that point of view.

As I say, I think that further comment on the speech must be reserved until we have had a chance to study it, because I am sure that you, as I, only have had an opportunity of hearing it once or perhaps reading through the text once, and have not had any opportunity of studying it and studying the many separate points that were raised in it.

If I may, now I will be very glad to answer other questions.

[Here follows a question-and-answer session.]

1. Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 59, Conference Files: FRC 83–0068, CF 1774. Herter spoke before the Foreign Press Association, then answered questions from the audience.
2. Herter met with Dutch Foreign Minister Luns from 4–4:45 p.m. They discussed the General Assembly session, European organization, Algeria, armaments, West New Guinea, President Eisenhower’s schedule at the General Assembly, and Sukarno’s arrival in New York. (SecDel/MC/90, Department of State, Central Files, 320/9–2360)
3. Reference is to Khrushchev’s address, supra.
4. Hammarskjöld’s letter has not been found. The resolution under reference is 1474 (ES–IV); for text, see U.N. doc. A/RES/1474 (ES-IV).
5. See Document 180.
6. For text of the Soviet proposal for basic provisions of a treaty on general and complete disarmament, see U.N. doc. A4505. For text of the draft declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, see U.N. doc. A4502.