Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

320/1–1152

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Ward P. Allen, Adviser, United States Delegation to the General Assembly

confidential

Paris, January 11, 1952.

Subject: South Africa’s Proposed Resolution On Illegality of Invitation to Hereros

Participants:	Minister Donges, South Africa
	Ambassador Jooste, South African Delegation
	Mr. Wessles, South Africa Delegation
	Mrs. Roosevelt, US Delegation
	Ambassador Sayre, US Delegation
	Ward P. Allen, US Delegation

After expressing regret at the misunderstanding which had led us to firm up our position¹ in advance of further discussion with him, Dr. Donges re-stated the reasons which prompt South Africa to take this step. He pointed out that the situation in South Africa is one of “extreme gravity” and that it is absolutely essential that some such move as this be made in order to “stave off something more serious”. Minister Donges re-emphasized in the first place the importance of permitting debate on this item in the Plenary so that South Africa can be heard and stated he would not dare prophesy the results of the “added insult hurled on us” if they are not given an opportunity to speak. It would, in his view, be a “tragedy”.

They do intend to introduce their proposed resolution, except in the event that Committee 4 between now and the time of the Plenary should pass a condemnatory resolution regarding the refusal of South Africa to grant passports and facilities for the Herero chiefs to make their appearance. Mr. Donges pointed out since the South African government was convinced the invitation was illegal they were, of course, unable to grant these facilities since to do so would have made them in fact “accessories after the Fact” to this unconstitutional act. If Committee 4 does pass such a condemnatory resolution, the South African Delegation will not present its resolution to the Plenary, but would of course want to have the condemnatory resolution rejected and this they would regard as a “second best” solution to the problem. If Committee 4 does not pass such a resolution, then South Africa does intend to introduce its resolution in the Plenary. Minister Donges felt there was a real possibility that it might be ruled out of order. Then at least the government could not be blamed for [not?] having tried. In that case South Africa would of course like other countries to support them in the course of the debate which would give them some consolation. (Although he was careful not to say so, it was the impression of the US representatives that Minister Donges is rather hoping that the resolution will be ruled out of order since this would provide a way out for his Delegation).

In the course of the discussion Minister Donges pointed out that South Africa is not actuated in this proposed move by petty motives. There is a serious danger in his view to “our Organization”. He went on to say that South Africa does regard the UN as their Organization as much as anybody else’s and they are fully prepared to stand by the Charter as it was originally conceived at San Francisco. He pointed out that those who are most vociferous in attacking South Africa and in seeking to extend the Charter procedures do not show up very well in the last analysis when their support of the UN is put to the test of making actual sacrifices and contributions of men and wealth in support of the Charter.

He made a plea that the various delegations should see South Africa’s unique situation in a broader light. He pointed out it was difficult to discuss her particular situation with persons who have not actually been in South Africa and understand it. It is possible in such matters, even if all the facts are correctly stated, to come out with an entirely wrong picture.

Mrs. Roosevelt replied that we would immediately transmit Minister Donges’ points to the Department and request that they give them careful consideration and send us further instructions.² She stated that, however, she was not “overly hopeful” that it would be possible for the Department to change its basic position, but pointed out that Minister Donges had introduced a new element in referring to the possibility that the resolution might be presented but ruled out of order and not pressed to a vote. She stated that the US continues to feel that efforts to work with South Africa in an approach of friendly and frank understanding are important to the US and stated we did have a full appreciation of the contribution South Africa is making to honor its commitments under the Charter. In the ensuing discussion Ambassador Sayre pointed out our fear that if the resolution were pressed to a vote and rejected, as it certainly would be, that rejection would be taken as a precedent to hear all sorts of individuals in Committee 4 and our efforts to keep such invitations to a minimum would be useless. Minister Donges replied that then at least we would all know where we stood and all be in the same boat.

1. This is a reference to the position adopted by the Department of State, and set forth in Department’s telegram Gadel 619, January 7, 1952 (telegram 145 to Pretoria, p. 720), that in the opinion of the United States Government the Fourth Committee invitation to the Herero chiefs was not ultra vires. This clarification is contained in the Delegation’s telegram to the Department, reporting this conversation with Donges; see footnote 2 below.

2. The Delegation reported this conversation to the Department of State in Paris telegram Delga 979, January 11, 1952, 5 p. m. At the end, the telegram reads:

   “We intend obtain views Padilla Nervo and others on question whether [proposed South African] resolution would be in order. We have not yet told Donges exact US position on this point or on support for plenary debate. … If South Africa continues determined present resolution it may be that after debate a presidential ruling or plenary decision that it is out of order will be best solution.” (320/1–1152)