226. Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State1
961. Congo.
Following introduction by Guinea of resolution (ourtel 9572) calling for immediate seating of representative Congo central government, we checked re “credentials” received by UN from Congolese leaders. [9 words not declassified] Telegrams sent to SYG during Security Council meetings, and subsequently, showed that Bomboko has clearest title of any Congolese representative. Latest communication from Kasavubu is dated September 23 and appoints Bomboko, Badibanga, and Fele as delegates to GA. This delegation was later confirmed to Secretariat in writing (Secretariat usually prefers not to accept cables as credentials) by Bomboko after he arrived in New York. (A few days earlier, Secretariat had received cable form Kasavubu which included Kanza, along with Bomboko as delegates, but Kanza was dropped in September 23 telegram.)
Kanza’s position is fuzzy. His claim would have to rest on communications sent some time ago which appointed him (and in some cases Bomboko) for various Security Council meetings. [5 words not declassified] Kanza has no General Assembly accreditation although [Page 418] Secretariat did receive telegram from Lumbala (Parliamentary official) supporting Kanza as Congo representative based on actions of parliament in favor of Lumumba. Kanza now in New York as is Badibanga.
Re procedure for handling matter, [4 words not declassified] that Guinea proposal in present circumstances should be opposed by US as interference in domestic Congolese affairs since it designed to lead to recognition of one political faction over others. We pointed out GA had already decided to send issue to Credentials Committee3 and that Guinea proposal was therefore issue of reconsideration which required decision by two-thirds majority. He had apparently not thought of this but agreed possible tactic would be to fight against reconsideration.
As Dept aware, at time of Congo’s admission, on proposal of Chair and without objection GA decided to refer issue of representation Congo to Credentials Committee, in view admittedly confused constitutional situation in Congo. In our view Guinea move clearly challenges this decision and could if point arises be fought on basis reconsideration rule. Another tactic would be to amend resolution by additional words “as designated by the chief of state”. From reactions other Africans at Harriman lunch (USUN 959, classified summary 734) seems likely there is little direct support for Guinea move at present and some positive opposition led by Congo (Brazzaville). We are encouraging Secretariat and others to arrange that resolution not be brought up for consideration. UK has agreed to speak to India about this. It may however be pressed as early as tomorrow.
GA debate on Congo credentials now would be extremely divisive. Guinea-Soviet group would not win in seating Lumumba representatives but we might find ourselves pitted against them and large number Afro-Asians, including many with units in ONUC. For our part we do not think time has yet arrived for US to push decision in absence clearer governmental structure in Congo. If Kasavubu appointees could receive parliamentary approval, we could then probably move successfully, although still in opposition to strong position of Ghana, Guinea, UAR, Mali, Indonesia, Soviets, probably Morocco and undoubtedly some others. Would appreciate Department’s urgent views this subject.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 303/10–1160. Confidential; Priority. Received at 9:43 p.m.↩
- Telegram 957, October 11, transmitted the text of Guinean draft resolution proposing that the representatives of the Central Government of the Republic of the Congo be seated in the General Assembly. (Ibid.)↩
- See Document 177.↩
- Not found. On October 11, however, Satterthwaite sent Herter a memorandum reporting on the luncheon which Averell Harriman had given for African U.N. Delegates in order to brief them on preparations for a conference on African resources to be held the following year. A copy of the memorandum is in Washington National Records Center, RG 59, Conference Files: FRC 83–0068, CF 1772.↩