Office of the Historian

54. Telegram From the Mission to the European Office of the United Nations to the Department of State1

Geneva, August 6, 1969, 1548Z.

2817. Subject: ECOSOC—Implementation of Colonialism Resolution (Item 20). Refs: A. Geneva 2797, B. Geneva 2800.2

1.
Del off spoke with UK (Allen) Wednesday A.M. about draft resolution contained in Ref A. Allen also feels that on whole this draft is less objectionable than prior GA resolutions this subject. Given this premise it was agreed that it most unlikely that there will be any negative votes on resolution as whole by other delegations since other five negative votes on GA Res 2426 (XXIII) are not represented on ECOSOC. On looking over operative para Allen said they would undoubtedly [Page 88] oppose paras 2 and 4 as inconsistent with their stand in past. Para 3 not completely acceptable since it incorporates objectionable reference to assistance to liberation movements (para 2 Ref B), but Allen thinks abstention (along with US) would be appropriate in circumstances. Allen has same problem mentioned para 1 Ref B with para 7 V but says that vote on this para or subparagraph would probably depend on whether they abstain or vote no on resolution as whole. On para 8 Allen pointed out that this paragraph could be objected to for legitimate organizational reasons, particularly involvement of CPC and joint meeting of CPC and APC, and again that final position would probably depend on overall position.
2.
Allen and del off spoke with IBRD and IMF reps who were generally relaxed about draft resolution. They both felt that para 2 could be much worse and that it even implies recognition of fact that they have extended some cooperation. They both would feel more comfortable if there were no separate vote on para 2 which they feel would precipitate unwelcome harangue this point. US-UK abstention on resolution as whole would be quite satisfactory to them.
3.
Belgian del off confirmed position reported Ref A, saying he now has instruction to abstain on resolution as whole and authority to vote no on paras 2, 4, 7 V if there is separate vote, with flexibility on paras 5 and 8.
4.
Del off heard in corridors that several amendments will be offered by co-sponsors. In para 7, recommendation will be directed to SA’s themselves rather than governing bodies or deliberative organs. In para 4, on suggestion of UNESCO, ILO and WHO will be added to list of “good guys.”
5.
In view foregoing and in order to further our efforts to minimize polarization and confrontation with LDC’s, particularly Africans, del strongly recommends that we abstain. British are making similar recommendation so that in abstaining we would presumably be joining UK, other WEO and LA’s (with possible exception Jamaica). On question separate vote on objectionable paras del would be inclined not to request it. We would note our objections in brief explanation of vote which would also indicate our support for positive aspect of resolution and would specifically call attention to fact that we are abstaining rather than voting against because of more constructive tone of resolution and because we sense attempt on part of co-sponsors to take into account known objections of other members.
6.
Would also appreciate instructions in para by para vote in event someone calls for it. UK and Belgians have both indicated they do not intend to do so.
Tubby
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, POL 19 UN. Confidential. Repeated to USUN.↩
  2. See Document 53 and footnote 2 thereto.↩