304. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Cleveland) to Secretary of State Rusk 1

SUBJECT

  • Human Rights Initiative in the General Assembly-Proposal for a Permanent Rapporteur on Human Rights

Attached herewith is my memorandum proposing a permanent UN rapporteur on human rights in follow-up of the President’s speech in the General Assembly.2

You recall that we discussed some of the elements in this proposal with you during preparation of his speech last September.

Also attached is a memorandum to you from Mr. Chayes expressing some doubts. Mr. Dutton has associated himself with this statement.3

I believe the doubts expressed by Mr. Chayes are met in large meas-ure in my underlying statement. However, I would like to comment on certain specific points:

1.
We have several defenses against the rapporteur being pressed into making investigations of U.S. racial problems. In the first place, he would work under the direction of the Human Rights Commission, the composition of which is relatively favorable from the western point of view. Moreover, most members of the Commission—and indeed of the UN generally—will be reluctant to establish precedents or give the rapporteur authority which might be turned against them at some later time.
2.

The existence of a human rights rapporteur will provide no additional opportunity for US negro leaders to make use of the UN system to expose grievances. The rapporteur would not receive complaints or petitions; he would not hold hearings or conduct independent investigations. [Page 667] Our race situation is already known to all through our public press; on occasion agitators have circularized all UN Delegations in New York with negro housing and other complaints. The rapporteur should help protect us against sensational charges.

The UN receives thousands of letters each year from individuals or groups alleging human rights violations. These are made available to the Human Rights Commission for information (usually without the signature to safeguard the writer), but the Commission does not discuss or take action on the basis of these communications. The Rapporteur would have similar access. Negro leaders can add to the total of these communications if they wish, and the Rapporteur could report on their substance in his discretion. However, if the matter were of importance, he would have access to similar information in the public press, and would find it easier to make use of a public source.

So far as the General Assembly and other UN bodies are concerned, any Delegation is free to propose an agenda item on any subject, including a race problem. This situation would not be changed one way or the other by the existence of a human rights rapporteur, but the objective nature of his reports should discourage efforts to embarrass the United States on race grounds.

3.
While it is true that racial matters will continue to be a “hot issue” in the United Nations, there is no reason why we should not take steps to enlarge the scope of human rights considerations. Indeed, Mr. Chayes concedes this in suggesting possible advantage “through more aggressive use of the Human Rights Commission . . .”. For the United States to benefit by such use, it seems to us essential that the Commission be equipped with up-to-date and objective information.
4.
Our proposal at this time is to ask the General Assembly to establish the rapporteur post in principle, leaving detailed implementation to the Economic and Social Council next summer. Selection of the rapporteur, on the nomination of the Secretary General, would require confirmation by the General Assembly next fall. The rapporteur would accordingly not be able to take any action which could influence civil rights legislation now pending in Congress.

As for the effect of introduction of the proposal in the General Assembly, we expect to keep this in low key and to move only in association with a number of co-sponsors.

  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, SOC 14 ECOSOC. No classification marking. Drafted on November 12 by Rachel C. Nason and retyped on November 13. This memorandum formed Tab D of a package sent to the Secretary by Cleveland on November 13; see footnote 1, Document 303.
  2. Document 303.
  3. In his November 8 memorandum Chayes had no serious objection to the proposed UN Human Rights Rapporteur, but was “dubious about it.” Should the Rapporteur become involved with “racial incidents in the United States,” his activities would be injurious to both U.S. public support for the United Nations and to “satisfactory resolution of our own civil rights problems.” Only marginal benefits were likely, if, as proponents claimed, a Rapporteur would provide perspective to U.S. problems by emphasizing human rights violations elsewhere. Dutton wrote, “I concur” on Chayes’ memorandum.