320/1–952
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Ward P. Allen, Adviser, United States Delegation to the General Assembly
Subject: Proposed South Africa resolution in plenary on hearing Herero chiefs.
| Participants: | Ambassador Jooste, (South Africa) |
| Mr. Wessels (South Africa) | |
| Mrs. Roosevelt | |
| Ambassador Sayre | |
| Mr. Allen |
Mrs. Roosevelt explained to Ambassador Jooste the reasons why in the US view it would be very inadvisable for South Africa to present in the plenary its proposed resolution on the legality of Committee Four’s decision to hear the Herero chiefs. She pointed out that South Africa’s own interest, in our view, would be gravely harmed by the bitter debate which would follow, and the certain defeat of the resolution. The US felt that such a definite decision by the Assembly might also have unfortunate consequences as a precedent in other cases, and this matter was an aspect with which other countries, as well as South Africa, are concerned. She stated that after careful consideration of the legal issues involved, the US had come to the conclusion that the action of Committee Four was legal, although in general, the US believes invitations to individuals should be issued only sparingly. [Page 724] Thus, if the resolution were presented, the US would not be able to support it. She strongly hoped, therefore, that South Africa would reconsider its decision to proceed, believing that the better course would be to continue negotiations with the Ad Hoc Committee to work out an agreement following the procedures of the Mandate. Ambassador Sayre substantiated Mrs. Roosevelt’s statement, pointing out the difficulty of obtaining moderate action by the majority in Committee Four, and the assistance of the US in the passage of the main resolution.
Ambassador Jooste replied that the South African government realized the seriousness of the contemplated move, and was aware of the risks and difficulties, but found themselves under overwhelming pressure from public opinion in South Africa, inflamed at this latest act, to take some action. His government feels that it must try to seek clarification by the General Assembly as to whether in the future the Charter limits, and Mandate procedures will be respected or not. He stated that it is very painful and inconsistent with the dignity of a country to walk out of a Committee, and is harmful to the interest of the organization. It is not the course that South Africa desires to take, but it must know where it stands.
In the ensuing discussion of the influence of domestic and world opinion, particularly on racial questions, Mrs. Roosevelt pointed out that the US has learned in connection with its racial problem the importance of taking into serious consideration the strong currents and attitudes of work in the world, Governments can do much to influence their domestic opinion at home and can help ward off emotional attacks upon their policies abroad by continual and full dissemination of facts of the situation and of the efforts they are making to solve such problems.
Ambassador Jooste stated he would convey the views of the US on the proposed resolution to Minister Donges, and he thought it might be desirable to have further consultations on this matter in a day or so.
Subsequently, Jooste indicated to Mr. Allen that one of the purposes of the further consultations would be to have Minister Donges explain in detail the constitutional basis for South Africa’s position. Mr. Allen suggested that while we were always glad to discuss any question, he frankly thought no useful purpose would be served by further detailed discussion on the legalities. When Jooste, nevertheless, indicated a strong desire to hold them, Mr. Allen suggested that as an alternative, it would be better for the South African delegation to set forth their legal arguments in an informal memorandum which we would be glad to bring to the attention of the delegates and the Department, although it would probably not alter the opinion.
When he pressed further as to whether the statement that the US “would not support South Africa’s resolution” meant that we would [Page 725] vote against or abstain, Mr. Allen explained that this phrase was the language of our instructions, but that he personally felt we would probably vote against. Jooste again stated that the following countries had assured South Africa that they believed the Committee Four action was illegal: UK, France, Australia, Netherlands, Canada, and Belgium. He suggested it would be undesirable, since all these countries would vote in favor of the resolution, for the US to vote against. (UK and Australia subsequently confirmed their position that the action was illegal. M. Naudy stated that the French Government was inclined to the view that the action was illegal, but was not certain how definite M. Schuman1 had been with Jooste on this point.)
- Robert Schuman, French Foreign Minister, Chairman of the French Delegation to the General Assembly.↩