340.1 AG/2–752
The Acting Chairman of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly (Roosevelt) to the Secretary of State
My Dear Mr. Secretary: As it is possible that the French Ambassador may raise with you the question of including an article on self-determination in one or both of the Covenants on Human Rights, I thought I might give you the background of the situation as it developed in the General Assembly. This is a subject about which the French Government appears to be deeply concerned, and about which [Page 786] they will probably want to consult the Department in the coming months.
At the end of the debate on self-determination in the Third Committee the French Delegation was so upset about our attitude that two of their members, Mr. Broustra and Mr. Epinat, called Mr. Utter and, later, Mr. Bonsai of our Embassy to the Foreign Office to discuss the matter. When we indicated that we would be glad to have a more detailed exchange of views, Professor Cassin, Mr. Broustra, Mr. Epinat, and Mr. Juvigny invited me to lunch, together with Mr. Green and Mr. Simsarian, to discuss the problem further. The French have made no further approach to the Embassy since this luncheon conversation.
In their conversations with Mr. Bonsai, Mr. Utter, and with me the French expressed their very great concern over the resolution on self-determination adopted by the Third Committee. I enclose a copy of this resolution, which was adopted on February 5 in the Plenary. You will note that the resolution prescribes the exact text of an article on self-determination for inclusion in one or both of the Covenants and gives the Human Rights Commission no discretion to revise it.
The history of this resolution is that we tried to make changes by cooperation with the Afghanistan member, who was one of the thirteen co-sponsors. The co-sponsors proposed the inclusion of an article which should simply say, “All peoples have the right to self-determination.” We felt that it should be left to the Commission on Human Rights to reaffirm the principles already in the Charter, either in the preamble or in any other way they saw fit. We lost on this. Finally, we accepted the fact that there should be an article with the understanding that the wording should not be limited to these words—“All people shall have the right to self-determination.”—but could be elaborated by the Commission and safe-guarded in any way they felt necessary. The final resolution, however, was a hodge-podge of Soviet amendments, a Syrian amendment, and various other wordings. As a resolution emerged from the Committee, it made no sense. Even the Delegate from Iraq was willing to have it amended. Our Delegation agreed that we should not co-sponsor any amendment, but might suggest language to others, and vote for the new wording if somebody else proposed it.
No amendment was submitted in the Plenary, but the Danish Delegation proposed that the two operative paragraphs of the resolution be voted in parts, so that the Assembly might have a chance to delete some of the unsatisfactory language. Unfortunately, no change was made in the first operative paragraph, but the Plenary did delete the long second sentence in the second operative paragraph. The resolution, with this deletion was adopted by 42–7 (US)–5.
[Page 787]The French are very much worried about the inclusion of any kind of article on self-determination, no matter how carefully drafted the language might be. They fear that this will lead to economic self-determination of peoples and not be limited to the political self-determination alone. I feel that at present the only idea in the minds of most of the sponsors in the Arab countries at least, is purely political. However, I am not at all sure that in the minds of the Soviets, who warmly uphold the Arabs on this, there is not the thought underlying their support of how they can use it to embarrass the free countries of the world in different ways. The French pointed out that the inclusion of the right of self-determination in a treaty might mean the abrogation of treaties and contracts in the economic field. They pointed out to us that it might easily mean the abrogation of agreements on military bases. They tried to frighten us in every possible way and they are very much frightened themselves. I feel, though they avoid saying so, that the political implications are of major importance to them.
I do not myself see, however, what is to be gained by having introduced an absurd resolution of recommendation to the Human Rights Commission and just voting against it. The vote in Committee 3 was overwhelmingly against us: 33–9–10. We were among the 9, because we could not vote for the present wording. The French prefer to continue in the minority and say it is important that we should be with them. I think that though they are bringing out the economic and military points, they are more concerned really on the political self-determination of peoples as it touches Morocco and Tunisia. I think also the British are concerned from this point of view primarily.
There is a desire on the part of the Arab and Afghanistan Delegates to have the article on self-determination included in both Covenants so that no matter who ratifies which Covenant, this remains. We would, of course, make every effort to have the entire article only in the economic and social covenant, but we would probably be defeated and so my only hope is that we might be able to accept a civil and political covenant, making a reservation on this article.
I am not wholly in sympathy with the French attitude, but I realize why it is hard for a government with colonial possessions not to be excited and I promised to put before you their whole argument and point of view and I have done so as nearly as I can remember the points put forth by them. They are frank in saying that with such an article included they could not possibly ratify a Covenant and they doubt if it can be put in legal form.
I should also say that an Afghanistan adviser, who speaks only French, told me their anxiety was that their point of view would not be brought before the Human Rights Commission. I assured him that if no one else presented it, I would do so, though I could give no commitment [Page 788] as to what our attitude would be on it. He said he understood that and he only wanted to be assured they would be represented. I think it fair to assume that Pakistan, which is on the Commission, will state their case.
I have gone over the Human Rights Commission membership for the next meeting, and we will be 9–9 when Uruguay votes with us and that is by no means always the case. Direct opposition to self-determination, therefore, seems to me useless and the effort to get the least objectionable article almost a necessity.
Very cordially yours,
- See General Assembly resolution 421 D (V). [Footnote in the source text.]↩