315.3/1–2254: Circular instruction
The Acting Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic Missions 1
CA–3835
- Subject:
- UNGA Action on Administrative Tribunal Awards
The Department desires to express its appreciation for the prompt action taken in response to the previous instructions relating to the above subject. For your guidance in future conversations or negotiations, the Department also wishes to report both the action taken by the General Assembly on the question of the Administrative Tribunal awards and the position taken by certain individual governments represented in the General Assembly.
The situation created by the decisions of the Tribunal was considered by the General Assembly in two different contexts. First, the Secretary General presented amendments to the staff regulations and the Tribunal’s statute in an effort to clarify his powers and thus prevent future inroads on his powers by the Tribunal. Secondly, the Secretary General in submitting his supplemental budget estimates for 1953 requested the appropriation of $179,420 for the payment of the awards made by the Tribunal on the basis of its decisions in the eleven controversial cases.
The Secretary General’s proposals for amending the regulations to clarify his powers were, in general, supported. Whether they will effectively serve their intended purpose remains to be seen. The United States Delegation and the Department have considerable reservations as to some of these amendments and the practical effect which will be given to them by both the Secretary General and the Tribunal. The amendments, and most particularly the interpretation given to them [Page 378] by the Secretary General in his statements before the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, were general and did not appreciably clarify the respective powers of the Secretary General and the Tribunal. Because there is basically a wide variance of opinion in the Assembly as to the proper role of the Tribunal, it is our view that such a general formulation of policy is not likely to result in a resolution of the basic issues. It is the Secretary General’s belief, however, that he will be better able to maintain his position with respect to both the Assembly and the Tribunal if the test of his power is made on the basis of specific cases rather than on the basis of obtaining approval of regulations which specify more fully the extent of his powers.
As indicated in the Department’s previous communication, it was the United States position that the best way to clarify the Secretary General’s position vis-à-vis the Tribunal was to reject the awards. The major United States effort was therefore directed toward defeating the appropriation for the awards.
When this item came up in the Assembly, the estimated support for the United States position, based on reports from the posts and negotiations in New York, totalled a maximum of 22 votes. Approximately 31 votes were known to be against the United States position and the remaining seven delegations were either undecided or had indicated an intention to abstain. It was obvious therefore that the United States would lose its position on the basis of a majority vote in the Fifth Committee. The United States had based its position on the possibility of defeating the appropriation for the awards by invoking the two-thirds rule of the Charter. An estimate of voting strength indicated that the United States, if all delegations honored their pledges, would have backing of at least one-third plus one of the delegations present and voting.
When the political and legal considerations became better understood, and when it became evident that majority support for the United States position was lacking and that a close plenary vote would seriously split the Assembly, concern over the gravity with which the United States viewed the issue impelled several delegations to achieve some sort of compromise. These included some who, though sympathetic, disagreed with the United States position and some who were instructed to support the United States. The lead was taken by the British Delegation, which basically did not agree with the United States position.
The United Kingdom proposed, in effect, to refer the dispute over the
legal aspects of the question to the International Court of Justice
for an advisory opinion. This proposal was widely circulated and
discussed prior to formal introduction. It became clear that such a
proposal would carry by a substantial majority. The major issue then
became the kind of questions to refer to the Court. The United
States
[Page 379]
Delegation sought
to restrict the questions referred to the Court; others, led by the
French Delegation, sought to refer the entire merits of the case to
the International Court of Justice. The French position was defeated
and the Fifth Committee decided by a vote of 37 to 7 with 12
abstentions to refer the following two questions to the
International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion:
The United States Delegation abstained on the decision to refer these questions to the International Court of Justice. While the United States considered that the Assembly could, should and in the end must make its own decision with regard to the issues in these cases, the United States could not prevent the referral by marshalling a majority against it. It was believed that a last ditch fight against referral on the issue would only injure the United States interests by casting doubt on the United States legal position and alienating United States supporters who regarded the Court referral as only reasonable. The United States made known its strong opposition to referring the merits of the cases to the International Court of Justice or committing the General Assembly in advance to appropriate money, depending upon what answer the Court might give to it. As a consequence, the Fifth Committee rejected proposals by the French Delegation to explore the merits of the individual cases and to grant the Secretary General authority to pay the awards automatically, if the International Court of Justice opinion upheld the position of the Tribunal. As a consequence, no appropriation was made for the payment of the Tribunal awards and the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the questions put forth will have to be considered by the Assembly at its Ninth Session together with all of the other considerations—political and budgetary as well as legal—before final disposition is made of the particular cases and of the awards fixed by the Tribunal.
The Assembly endorsed the action of the Fifth Committee by a vote of 41 to 6 with 13 abstentions.
For Ankara: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Turkish Government and delegation on this issue. Mr. Vaner, Turkish representative on the Fifth Committee, carried out his government’s instructions in a particularly helpful manner.
[Page 380]For Athens: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Greek Government and delegation on this issue. The representative of Greece in the Fifth Committee carried out the instructions of his government exactly. The Embassy may wish to mention that Ambassador Aghnides, in particular, while he could not as Chairman of the Advisory Committee participate in the debate as representative of Greece, was influential in developing a better understanding on the part of other delegations of the issue involved and the basis for United States concern.
For Baghdad: The Department assumes Embassy has already expressed United States appreciation for support of Iraqi Government on the basis of Delga 388, December 8, repeated Baghdad, USUN 1.
For Bangkok: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Government of Thailand and delegation on this issue.
For Bogota: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the partial support which the Delegation of Colombia was able to offer to the United States Delegation at the General Assembly. While the Colombia Delegation was instructed to oppose the basic United States position, it did collaborate with the United Kingdom in framing a compromise proposal and attempted to make this proposal as acceptable to the United States as possible.
For Buenos Aires: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Argentinian Government and delegation on this issue. Senor Leonardo Cafiero, Argentinian representative on the Fifth Committee, carried out his government’s instructions exactly and collaborated in a close and helpful manner with the United States Delegation.
For Canberrra: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Australian delegation on this issue. Sir Percy Spender’s speech on the Tribunal awards was most forceful in its analysis of the Tribunal’s errors and in its argument for respecting and preserving the powers of the Assembly and the Secretary General.
For Capetown: FYI—Although the instructions of South Africa were not favorable to the United States position on the appropriation of the awards, the South African delegate was helpful to the extent of abstaining or voting against the objectionable French amendments to the International Court of Justice referral.
For Caracas: FYI—The Venezuelan delegate supported the British proposal for International Court of Justice referral, but voted with the United States in opposition to all of the French amendments.
For Ciudad Trujillo: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Government and delegation of the Dominican Republic on this issue. Ambassador Franco y Franco [Page 381] carried out his government’s instructions in a particularly helpful manner.
For Habana: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Cuban Government and delegation on this issue. Dr. Carlos Blanco, Cuban representative on the Fifth Committee, carried out his government’s instructions exactly and collaborated closely and most helpfully with the United States delegation.
For Karachi: FYI—The Pakistan delegation followed, in general, the British position and helped the United States to the extent of voting against one of the objectionable French amendments to the International Court of Justice proposal.
For La Paz: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Bolivian Government and delegation on this issue.
For Lima: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Government and delegation of Peru on this issue.
For London: FYI—Our understanding is that the Foreign Office and Law Officer’s position on the questions to be referred to the International Court of Justice was much less acceptable to the United States and much more rigid than the version eventually sponsored by the United Kingdom delegation. This imposed rigidity created great difficulties for both the United Kingdom and the United States delegations, and no doubt accounts for the disconcerting fact that while the United Kingdom delegation did not include the most objectionable questions in its proposal, in the hope of winning a United States abstention, it nevertheless voted for a French amendment designed to achieve the same purpose.
For Managua: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Government and delegation of Nicaragua on this issue.
For Manila: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Government and delegation of the Philippines on this issue. The Philippines representative in the Fifth Committee carried out the instructions of his government exactly and collaborated closely with the United States Delegation.
For Paris: FYI—The United States delegation considered that the French delegation by act and word went completely contrary to the previous commitments of both the Foreign Office and the delegation that they would be as helpful as possible within limitations of basic French position on the Tribunal awards. Andre Ganem in the Fifth Committee made a lengthy, strong, and unfriendly speech aimed at the United States. Subsequently, the French sponsored resolutions designed to broaden the questions referred to the International Court of Justice in a manner totally unacceptable to the United States and to authorize the Secretary General to pay the awards without further action by the Assembly if the International [Page 382] Court of Justice opinion upheld the Tribunal—a proposal even more unacceptable to the United States.
For Port-au-Prince: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Haitian Government and delegation on this issue.
For Quito: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Ecuadorean Government and delegation on this issue.
For Santiago: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Chilean Government and delegation on this issue.
For Taipei: The Embassy’ may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Chinese Government and delegation on this issue.
For Tegucigalpa: The Embassy may in its discretion convey to the Foreign Office the appreciation of the United States Government for the position taken by the Government and delegation of Honduras on this issue. Dr. Carias carried out his government’s instructions in a particularly helpful manner.
For San Salvador: For your information, although Foreign Office had pledged support on this issue, unfortunately El Salvador was not represented in the Fifth Committee when this issue was discussed.
For Asunción: For your information, although Foreign Office had pledged support on this issue, unfortunately Paraguay was not represented in the Fifth Committee when this issue was discussed.
- Sent to 62 posts. Note special instructions to certain posts at end of document.↩