Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Africa, Volume XIV

209. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission at the United Nations⁰

September 12, 1960, 5:52 p.m.

362. Subject: Hearing Congo Delegates in SC.

1. First major question next SC session on Congo likely be hearing Congo representatives since both Kasavubu and Lumumba are sending spokesman. We believe line to be taken publicly in any such debate is that Kasavubu is unquestionably head of state, and outside world looks to him for authoritative information as to identity of Government. Kasavubu has made clear his position on this and that Bomboko is Congo’s representative before Security Council. Draft statement on this point being sent separately.¹ While it is desirable to avoid being drawn into detail on Congolese constitutional issues in debate, following is Department’s tentative analysis of situation:

Kasavubu has clearly superior position. In this regard, we consider SYG laid excellent foundation in his statement September 9² when he pointed out that Kasavubu’s dismissal of Lumumba was valid and that Prime Minister could not under any circumstances dismiss Chief of State. Kasavubu’s position further improved by fact Bomboko was Foreign Minister in original GOC approved by Congolese Parliament and remains FM designate in Ileo’s new cabinet.³ Since according to Art. 22 of Congo Fundamental Law “Chief of State appoints and dismisses Prime Minister and Ministers”, Bomboko has never legally been deposed.

With regard to question legality present government, Department holds view that since Lumumba was legally dismissed and Chief of State has announced formation new government under Ileo, latter government constitutes legal GOC pending its approval by Parliament. We believe that Lumumba’s claim to continued competence his government clearly invalid. In situation where Chief of State has constitutionally dismissed PM, and appointed new government, it is clearly beyond letter and intent Fundamental Law for outgoing PM to claim he continues direct government. We note Lumumba alleges on basis Art. 51⁴ that authority to interpret law belongs to Parliament; however, in present circumstances, resolutions passed last week by Lower House and Senate clearly extra-constitutional. Any vote by Parliament which purported overrule Chief of State’s dismissal of PM would be tantamount to amending constitution, and would obviously distort Art. 51. Only way in which Parliament could in effect disapprove Kasavubu’s dismissal of Lumumba and his government would be if it refused to approve Kasavubu’s newly designated government.

2. In light foregoing, and since it clearly in our interest support Kasavubu over Lumumba, we would strongly prefer have SC agree hear Bomboko as legal representative GOC. However, in view tendency in SC to wish to give both parties a hearing, we would have no objection to having Kanza⁵ heard as private individual. We do not believe it desirable to hear both on basis equality, since this would tend undermine our position and that of SYG that Kasavubu has acted legally. Therefore, you should consult urgently with SYG and Slim to see if agreement can be reached hear Bomboko as legal representative GOC and Kanza as private individual. You should press forward on this line if Tunisia will support or acquiesce in this as reasonable, but not over strong objection of Tunisia and SYG.

Credentials of representatives clearly procedural matter and we assume seven affirmative votes can be mustered in favor above course even if Tunisia did not feel it could vote affirmatively for Bomboko in preferential position to Kanza. We naturally prefer not to put SYG and Slim in unduly awkward position. If they object strongly to foregoing course, then next preferable alternative would be to hear neither party. We prefer first course because it would tend further enhance status Kasavubu but since Bomboko and Kanza would presumably make about equally effective presentation their respective cases, probably not much would be lost in substance of debate if neither party heard.

3. If Slim is unwilling go along with either of above courses, and insists strongly that both Bomboko and Kanza should be heard without prejudice to constitutional issue, you should reluctantly agree, making clear in your statement to the SC that US has no doubt re validity of Bomboko’s claim.

4. Under no circumstances would we agree hear only representative of Lumumba.

Herter

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 770G.00/9–1260. Drafted by Satterthwaite, Wilcox, and Assistant Legal Adviser for United Nations Affairs Leonard C. Meeker and approved by Herter. Repeated to Léopoldville.
1. In telegram 361 to USUN, September 12. (Ibid., 330/9–1260)
2. See footnote 1, Document 206.
3. Ileo announced his cabinet on September 10.
4. For text of Article 51, see Congo 1960, vol. I, p. 113.
5. Kanza was Lumumba’s designated representative to the United Nations.