ODA files, lot 62 D 225, “Visa Applications—Oral Hearings”
Memorandum by the Deputy Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (Cargo) to an Adviser of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly, at New York (Gerig)
- Subject:
- Oral Hearings in Committee 4 of Inhabitants of Trust Territories
It is clear from your memorandum of November 1, 19521 and from the recent meetings of Committee 4 that the question of oral hearings [Page 1285] by individuals and groups before the Committee is bound to become an increasingly troublesome problem. This memorandum contains some observations on the situation in relation to hearings of people from the trust territories. We are preparing a paper, which we will clear, on the particular issue you raise in your memorandum, namely the possibility that a Puerto Rican independence group may request a hearing in the Fourth Committee in connection with the factors question.
In the present mood of Committee 4, it is already quite evident that it will be difficult, if not impossible, at this session to get the Committee to decide not to hear individuals from trust territories who express a desire to be heard. Our Delegation in the Fourth Committee has on various occasions offered reasonable arguments as to why a hearing should not be granted in a particular case, but the Committee has not responded to the reason and logic which has been advanced, nor do I think it is likely to do so at the present time. I think, therefore, we are bound to have great difficulty at this session in achieving what I assume to be our general objective in respect of these requests for hearings—namely, while admitting and supporting the right of petition in relation to the trusteeship system, to seek to prevent the hearing of individuals and groups from being extended to become a major if not the major activity of Committee 4. Since there is no basis for contending that the Assembly is not legally competent to hear petitioners from trust territories, the achievement of the objective of limiting the number of hearings must be obtained with the support of a majority of the members of the Committee. For this reason, and because the majority at the moment is obviously intent on hearing almost everybody from the trust territories who expresses a desire to be heard, I think our best hopes for the future lie in the fact that the Fourth Committee at this session appears to be committing itself to a series of hearings which will almost inevitably consume a great deal of time and possibly will make the more moderate members realize that some other course must be followed than a simple agreement by the Committee to hear everybody who seeks to be heard. If this situation of “saturation and confusion” should materialize, perhaps at the next session of the Fourth Committee arguments such as those we have made on occasion this year may prevail in individual cases. If this general approach is valid, I believe that efforts by the administering powers at this session to rationalize the procedures of Committee 4 in relation to these oral hearings might give the Committee the feeling that it could from now on give attention to all who apply for hearings without jeopardizing its larger work program. Thus, a study of procedures at this stage might stimulate the establishment by Committee 4 of additional and even permanent machinery for oral hearings.
I believe that the Delegation has already used in relation to individual cases the principal contentions which we feel here might from [Page 1286] time to time be advanced against an oral hearing. With appropriate adaptation to a specific case, the principal possible contentions seem to be: (1) that the applicant for a hearing should bring his case first to the Trusteeship Council; (2) that, where a visiting mission is in the area, the report of the visiting mission should first be received and examined before a hearing is granted to an applicant from that area; (3) that the request for a hearing should indicate the nature of the problem which the applicant wishes to discuss and that the problem should be of major importance; and (4) that the applicant should submit written documentation on the basis of which a judgment could reasonably be made as to the desirability of granting him a hearing. It is true that these arguments do not seem to attract much support in the Committee this year. However, as I have suggested above, if the Committee has a bad experience with the question of oral hearings at this session, more attention may be paid to such views next year.
I am afraid that this is not a very optimistic analysis, but I am sure you agree that as is the case with most problems in the colonial field there is no easy solution to this one either.
- Not found in Department of State files.↩