367. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Austria1
305302. USIAEA. Subject: IAEA General Conference: South African Issues. Ref: (A) Vienna 11272;2 (B) Vienna 12303.3
1. C-Entire text
2. Summary. Dept agrees that exclusion or expulsion of South Africa from IAEA would work against non-proliferation interests. USDel should work for conference acceptance of South African credentials and should oppose any conference action to suspend or expel South Africa from Agency membership if debate should take this turn. USDel should take lead on this issue to demonstrate seriousness of our position and should advise Dept by immediate cable if approaches in capitals are indicated. End summary.
3. We understand from IO/SCT-Mission telecon November 20, that Australia is now likely to step aside for Malaysia in SEAP slate for General Committee. In absence some countervailing development, this would result in a General Committee make-up which will tip the vote 7 to 8 in the Committee against acceptance of South African credentials.
4. We understand Australian inclination to defer to another member of SEAP region since Australia occupied a Vice Presidency (and hence membership on the General Committee) at general conference last year. Inasmuch, however, as this will upset the balance on SA credentials issue and in view of the expressed hope by the Indians (ref (A) para 12) to achieve last year’s results, we wonder if the possibility might exist that New Zealand might be acceptable substitute for SEAP [Page 1098] slot. If Mission believes this is possible, Mission may explore with Australian and Indian Missions. Is there any possibility that Indians, in view their desire to contain this issue in New Delhi, might be willing to intercede with both New Zealand and Malaysia?
5. Dept agrees fully with Mission view that exclusion or expulsion action against South Africa in IAEA could be seriously counterproductive to non-proliferation objectives. Mission should consult with WEOG Missions in Vienna (and Del should continue consultations with same Dels after arrival in New Delhi) to consolidate as much support as possible for favorable credentials results4 and opposition to South African suspension or expulsion. While we recognize chances are poorer if the issue goes to a vote in plenary, it is nevertheless very important that we achieve as large a show of opposition as possible. Del, as desirable, should make points below in its consultations with WEO’s and other delegations as the question arises.
6. On the credentials issue, the USDel should emphasize the technical character of the examination of member states credentials in exercise of which the application of political criteria is irrelevant. Our abhorrence of South African policy of apartheid is amply on record throughout UN system and elsewhere. Nevertheless, we believe the strength and integrity of UN system demands adherence to constitutional and procedural requirements, recognizing that the system itself provides ample opportunity for recording diverse political views. Introduction of divisive political issues into technical agencies like IAEA can only hinder them in meeting their vital international responsibilities. IAEA statute (Article XIX) provides only for suspension (by two-thirds vote) of the privileges of Agency membership and only for narrowly defined reasons (which do not apply in this case). The statute provides no basis whatever for expulsion which would involve a clear violation of the statute and would set a particularly unfortunate precedent in the IAEA, given its critical non-proliferation safeguards role. Expulsion moves in other fora have demonstrated value of secret ballot in lessening political pressures on members if issue comes to a vote. Moreover, in light of two-thirds vote required under IAEA statute for suspension of a member we believe this majority called for in more drastic issue of possible expulsion should also be two-thirds.
7. On the relevance of the nuclear event in the southern hemisphere to this question, Del should point out that this issue remains under investigation in the UN itself by the Secretary General. Until that investigation is complete, the IAEA should not take any action which would [Page 1099] prejudge the outcome and place the Agency in the untenable position of acting in the absence of any facts.
8. Mission (and subsequently delegation) should keep Dept closely advised on its consultations on this issue by immediate telegram. Contingency statements will be provided septel.5
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790542–0448. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by John P. Trevithick (IO/SCT); cleared by Marion V. Creekmore (IO), Barbara J. Schrage (OES/NTS), Alan W. Locke (S/AS), Lewis R. Macfarlane (AF/S), and Linda Gallini (ACDA/NP); approved by Charles W. Maynes (IO). Sent for information to New Delhi.↩
- In telegram 11272 from Vienna, October 19, the Mission provided a preliminary review of the agenda for the IAEA General Conference, including the issue of South Africa’s credentials. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790483–0269)↩
- In telegram 12303 from Vienna, November 15, the Mission informed the Department that “there is real possibility that a serious challenge to South Africa will arise at General Conference. However, there is as yet no concrete indication of this amongst Vienna Missions and it is not clear whether challenge would be focused on South Africa’s credentials for General Conference or on expelling it from the IAEA (even though there is no provision for expulsion in statute). Mission believes US non-proliferation interests argue for moderate US effort to preserve South Africa’s position.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790525–0850)↩
- In telegram 22229 from New Delhi, December 5, the delegation informed the Department that South Africa’s credentials were rejected on December 5. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790571–0312)↩
- In telegram 308417 to New Delhi and Vienna, November 30, the Department transmitted the contingency statement. The statement reads: “My delegation opposes any effort to expel South Africa from the IAEA on the grounds that to do so would violate the Agency’s statute. There is no provision for expulsion of a member state in the statute, and furthermore, we do not believe that there are any grounds for the suspension of South Africa by the general conference under Article XIXB of the statute. Moreover, my government considers such action against South Africa to be detrimental to our mutual non-proliferation objectives and our common efforts to gain broader acceptance, including that of South Africa, of IAEA safeguards. “Indications of a possible nuclear event in the southern hemisphere provides no basis for action against South Africa or any state since, to date, there is no conclusive evidence that a nuclear explosion took place—much less that any particular nation or party can be held accountable. The United States is continuing to investigate all available information on this matter and has expressed its willingness to cooperate with the inquiry requested of the UN SYG by the General Assembly. “Finally, my government is on record in the IAEA and in many other fora within the UN system and elsewhere as being totally opposed to South Africa’s racial policies. However, the repugnance with which the world community views apartheid is irrelevant to South Africa’s continued participation in IAEA. We believe that the strength and integrity of the UN system demands adherence to constitutional and procedural requirements, recognizing that the system itself provides ample opportunity for recording diverse political views. My government is opposed on principle to the exclusion on political grounds of any member from an international organization. Introduction of divisive political issue into technical agencies like IAEA can only hinder them in meeting their vital international responsibilities. This is nowhere more true than in IAEA with its critical safeguards role.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790550–0505)↩