IO Files: US/A/M (Chr)/179
Minutes of the Forty-fourth Meeting of the United States Delegation, New York, November 24, 1950, 9:15 a. m.
[Here follow list of persons present (50) and discussion of a prior agenda item.]
2. Southwest Africa (Gadel 124 and 125).
Mr. Gerig explained that the question of Southwest Africa would arise in the Fourth Committee within the next day or so. There had been some new developments since the last time the Delegation had considered this item. He recalled that the basic issue in the case of Southwest Africa had been for several years the question of the slow assimilation of the territory by the Union Government, and the belief that the territory—the last League of Nations mandate which had not either become independent or been placed under trusteeship—should continued to have an international status of some kind. He observed that the Assembly had at each session adopted increasingly strong resolutions on this subject. Our position had been that while the Union Government was under no legal obligation in this regard, it did have a strong moral obligation. He went on to point out that there was an increasingly hostile feeling in the Fourth Committee against the policies of the Union of South Africa.
Last year, with the assistance of the United States, several questions had been prepared requesting an advisory opinion from the Court as to the international status of the territory, as to whether the Union Government had an international obligation with respect to the territory, and whether the Union government was competent alone to change the status of the territory. Mr. Gerig then summarized the opinion of the Court. In part, the Court had said that the mandate agreement continued to be in existence and had indicated that reports should be submitted to the United Nations, which was competent to examine reports and petitions, and that machinery for the examination of such reports and petitions should follow as closely as possible the procedures of the League of Nations.
Mr. Gerig stated that the real issue before the Fourth Committee would be the acceptance of the Court’s opinion on the status of Southwest Africa. This would then give rise to a second question as to the amount of pressure to be brought against the Union Government to accept the opinion and to act in accordance with it. We had discussed [Page 499] the matter in some detail with representatives of South Africa, who had informed us that while they did recognize their international responsibility for the territory and were prepared to enter into a limited agreement with the United Nations which would cover various points (except for reports and petitions), these would be incidental to their main undertaking before the United Nations, supervision of the territory with the interests of the natives in mind. They had indicated they could not accept an annual debate based on reports of the territory, because they knew the result would be heated discussion of race relations and other strictly domestic matters.
Mr. Gerig commented that, unfortunately, there had been an election recently in South Africa, and contrary to the advice of various governments, including the United Kingdom, the status of Southwest Africa had been made a major political issue. The Malan Government had actually won the election by substantial majorities, and it would be difficult for it to make any reversal of the announced position on Southwest Africa since the election had been won squarely on that issue.
Mr. Gerig indicated that the main question was as to the form of the draft resolution which should be submitted to the Committee. He recalled that the Delegation had previously decided that if the Union Government expressed willingness to submit reports, we should support a resolution to that effect. Since the Union was unwilling to do this, that alternative was out of the question. The second alternative had been that if they would not submit reports, we should support any resolution which would strongly urge them to carry out the Court’s opinion. The Delegation had also agreed that we should support a resolution expressing regret that the Union Government was not accepting the opinion of the Court by its refusal to submit reports. He explained that the question would arise in the Committee in terms of the full acceptance of the Court’s opinion, or, alternatively, provision for some form of consultation in order that the Court’s opinion might ultimately be implemented. A little time would be needed for negotiations to take place because the political situation was such that South Africa could not accept at this time a requirement to report on the territory, but it might if given a few months to work out details. He recalled that the Department had recommended that the Union Government might be invited to enter into negotiations with a small committee on the procedure to be followed. Perhaps in these circumstances a year would suffice to work out the difficulty. However, [Page 500] such a long delay would not be agreeable to India, which would like to set a date about six months in the future which would, in fact, be an ultimatum for the submission of reports.
Mr. Gerig called attention to the first alternative set forth in the Department’s telegram of instruction, Gadel 125 of November 17. Under this alternative the Union would be invited to enter into negotiations with the United Nations concerning steps to be undertaken to implement the Court’s advisory opinion and a committee would be established, to be composed of certain states, which committee would report to the next session of the General Assembly. Mr. Gerig thought it might be necessary for us to co-sponsor a resolution of this type. We might be joined by such states as Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Denmark, Canada or New Zealand, Egypt or Iraq, and Thailand or the Philippines. One problem would be to keep India off the list of co-sponsors, since the Union Government would find difficulty in accepting any resolution with which India was associated.
Mr. Gerig then called the Delegation’s attention to the unnumbered document in its collected papers which was a United Kingdom draft resolution.1 He explained that the Union had seen this draft and had grudgingly agreed to abstain on it. He called the Delegation’s attention to paragraph 2 of the draft resolution, which stated that the Assembly “accepts” the advisory opinion of the Court and “commends” to the Union Government the acceptance thereof as the basis for its future action with respect to the territory of Southwest Africa. This draft also did not state specifically that the Union should submit reports on the territory, although the idea would be included by implication. A special committee would be set up to negotiate with respect to this matter. Mr. Gerig inquired whether this particular variation from the recommendation from the Department would cover our position adequately. He explained that the draft would be presented informally to a small group of friendly states which might co-sponsor it.
Ambassador Austin inquired whether there was any point with respect to co-sponsorship and particularly whether, even if this draft were satisfactory, it was necessary for the United States to co-sponsor. Mr. Gerig explained that other delegations had informed us that if we did not co-sponsor, an Indian resolution would carry from which there would be no result.
Senator Cooper believed that the United States was in a difficult position on this case. In the Fourth Committee we were practically in [Page 501] a middle position in every issue, although both sides seemed to like our position. In this particular case, the Court had now given its opinion. As he saw it, there were two factors to be taken into account. This was not a question like that of the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa. The area here was not within the Union but was more comparable to a trust territory inasmuch as it was the only remaining former mandate not now under trusteeship or independent. It had been partly our influence which had gotten the reference of the various questions to the International Court last year. For this reason he thought we should not compromise in any respect as regards the opinion of the Court but should stand firmly upon its decision. That was the basis of his objection to the British resolution, which first said that the United Nations accepted the opinion of the Court and then in the next phrase simply commended it to the Union’s consideration. The second question was one of the means to bring about the objectives and to implement the Court’s opinion. He thought there was real merit in the idea of appointing a committee to try to find out whether anything could be worked out with the Union Government. Even in these negotiations, he did not think we should compromise our position as outlined by the Court. He did not like the British draft for these reasons.
Ambassador Austin inquired whether Senator Cooper supported the first alternative set forth in Gadel 125. Senator Cooper indicated that he favored this alternative, which he considered as the most practical means of reaching a solution.
[Here follows further discussion in which the Delegation accepted paragraphs (4) and (5) of Gadel 125 as the basis for the United States position. It was agreed further that Senator Cooper should negotiate in the Fourth Committee for an appropriate text on this basis and for cosponsorship with other delegations but that such a draft resolution should not in any way compromise the principles laid down by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion.]
- See text of draft resolution in USUN’s telegram Delga 335, November 23, supra.↩