320/2–652
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Allison) to the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson)
Subject: US Position in UN on Self-Determination Resolution.
This morning’s unclassified summary from Paris reports that the US voted against the resolution on self-determination in the GA at its closing session. The resolution passed by a vote of 42–7–5.
The US thus appeared in opposition to a resolution relating to a peculiarly American concept, while the overwhelming majority of the UN—with the Soviet bloc of course included—registered support for it. For the Far East, and Asia as a whole, the propaganda consequences of this vote are obvious and unfortunate.
In searching about for an explanation of our position I find that in previous votes we had voted in favor of all parts of the resolution with two exceptions. The texts of these exceptions are given below.
In Delga’s 1299, February 41 it is stated that the US Delegate “expressed regret for the US negative vote on the self-determination text, explaining that her Delegation did not oppose inclusion of a practical article but did feel the Commission should have drafting leeway. The proposed text was not satisfactory she said.”
I realize that in the rush of the closing of the UN session the Delegation probably did not have opportunity to send full reports to the [Page 785] Department on this question or obtain instructions from the Department. From the statement quoted above it would appear that our opposition to the resolution was based chiefly upon technical considerations, i.e., a belief that the GA should not prescribe to the Human Rights Commission the exact language to be included in the international covenant or covenants but should leave the phrasing for determination by the Human Rights Commission.
While not questioning the soundness of this technical argument I question whether our position would not have been adequately indicated by our negative votes on the paragraphs in question. Considering the very great importance from a political and propaganda point of view of our stand on self-determination, we might then have voted for the resolution as a whole. This course seems in fact to have been followed by the Netherlands, Canada and Denmark.
I realize that the issue is closed for this session. It occurs to me, however, that the problem raised by this vote—the relative weight which our Delegation should give to technical consideration as against larger political issues—is a recurring one and one which might well be discussed within the Department in connection with preparations for the next GA.
The US voted against the following parts of the resolution in question:
“The GA
“Decides to include in the international covenant or covenants on human rights an article on the right of all peoples and nations to self-determination in reaffirmation of the principles enunciated in the Charter of the UN and drafted in following terms: All peoples shall have the right to self-determination.”
“Requests the Commission on Human Rights to prepare recommendations concerning international respect for self-determination of peoples and to submit these recommendations to the GA at its Seventh Session.”
- Not printed.↩