Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

ODA files, lot 62 D 225, “Committee 4”

Memorandum Prepared in the Office of Dependent Area Affairs

[Washington,] January 9, 1953.

Fourth Committee Items at the Seventh General Assembly

The Fourth Committee of the Seventh General Assembly held 65 meetings and adopted 15 resolutions. In the Committee the United States voted for 9 of these, against 5, and abstained on 1. In the Plenary the United States was able to support 11 out of the 14 resolutions finally adopted, as 2 of those against which it had voted in Committee Four (the Ewe resolution and the resolution on the renewal of the Non-Self-Governing Territories Committee) were satisfactorily amended, and 1 (the Wa-Meru resolution) was rejected, failing to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority.¹

principal issues in committee iv

1. Renewal of the Committee on Information: Sentiment in Committee Four was sharply divided between the majority who preferred the renewal of the Committee for an indefinite period and those Administering Authorities who were opposed to the continuation of the Committee. At the Committee stage, the United States and Venezuela took the lead in endeavoring to secure a compromise between the 2 extremes by seeking to renew the Committee for successive three-year periods. The advocates of an indefinite continuation of the Committee were successful in Committee Four (40–12 (U.S.)–2). However, strong statements by the United Kingdom, Belgium and France, pointing out that they could not participate in such a Committee, led the Plenary to reject the idea of a permanent Committee by a vote of 11–18 (U.S. Administering Authorities)–30 and approve a simple continuation of the Committee for three years.

2. Factors and Cessation: The Assembly has long considered itself competent to formulate guidance for Administering Authorities on the factors to be taken into account in the determination of when a territory ceases to be non-self-governing. The question of the General Assembly’s competence and role in relation to such a decision had been avoided until this session. The resolution adopted by the Fourth Committee (34–12(U.S.)–8) on the report of the Factors Committee clearly implies that the General Assembly shares with the Administering Authority competence to decide whether a territory is or is not non-self-governing. This resolution was adopted in Plenary by a vote of 36–15 (U.S.)–7. On a related subject, the question of the cessation of transmission of information on Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles, the Fourth Committee referred the matter to the new Factors Committee (29–0–13 (U.S.) to consider in the light of the Factors resolution. The Plenary vote was (55–0–4 U.S.). The United States abstained because of the unacceptable principles embodied in the Factors resolution.

3. Participation of Indigenous Inhabitants: Committee Four adopted 2 resolutions on this subject, 1 applicable to the Non-Self-Governing Territories Committee (40–10(U.S.)–4) and the other to the Trusteeship Council (25(U.S.)–1–24). The United States voted against the first of these resolutions because it refers to “direct participation” of “representatives” of non-self-governing territories in the work of the Committee. The United States believes that the best means of associating non-self-governing and trust territories more closely with the work of the United Nations is by expanding the practice of attaching suitably qualified indigenous persons to the delegations of Administering Members. The United States was able to support the resolution directed to the Trusteeship Council because it reflected this position. The Plenary vote on the Non-Self-Governing Territories Committee Resolution was (43–11 (U.S.)–4) and on the Trusteeship Council Resolution 36(U.S.)–1(Belgium)–19).

4. Oral Hearings: The question of the granting of oral hearings in Committee Four to petitioners from trust territories became acute at the Seventh Session when the Committee indiscriminately granted hearings to all who applied, in most cases without first examining the credentials of the petitioners or determining the nature of their complaint. The United States took the position that an orderly procedure should be established for granting such hearings and that in general oral hearings should be dealt with at least in the first instance, by the Trusteeship Council. Some Administering Authorities maintained that the way in which oral hearings were conducted by the Fourth Committee this year constituted participation by indigenous inhabitants of the trust territories in the work of the General Assembly. An additional problem for the United States involved the issuance of visas to the invitees, some of whom were ineligible for admission to the United States as ordinary visitors.²

5. The Wa-Meru Question: The most difficult of the oral hearings Involved a section of the Wa-Meru tribe of Tanganyika which was forcibly evicted from its land by the Government of Tanganyika as part of the implementation of a land re-allocation scheme in that territory. This group petitioned the Trusteeship Council, were granted an oral hearing and appealed to Committee Four when they considered that the Trusteeship Council Resolution had not given them full satisfaction. The discussion of this petition in Committee Four was conducted in a very emotional atmosphere, frequently critical of the Trusteeship Council. The Committee adopted a resolution by a vote of (32–17(U.S.)–3) inviting the Administering Authority to return the lands. In the Plenary this resolution, as well as a substitute resolution supported by the U.S., which expressed regret at the action taken by the Administering Authority and emphasized the need for full compensation and other ameliorative steps, without asking for the restoration of the land, each failed to achieve the necessary ⅔ vote. The Committee text failed by a vote of (28–20(U.S.)–10) and the substitute text was thereafter defeated by a vote of 21 (U.S.)–21–16).³

6. Ewe and Togoland Unification Question.—The United States introduced a resolution on this question in the Committee the principal objective of which was to bring about the re-establishment of a Joint Council for Togoland Affairs in which all local political groups would participate. Several amendments to the United States draft were adopted which rendered the final Committee draft unacceptable to the United States. The most extreme of these, introduced by Guatemala, provided for negotiations by the United Kingdom and France to establish a single trusteeship for a unified Togoland. The Committee adopted this resolution by a vote of 29–10 (U.S. Administering Authorities)–10. In the plenary the Guatemalan paragraph was deleted by a vote of 18–22 (U.S.) –18, and the text was otherwise improved by amendment. As a result the United States, as well as the United Kingdom and France, supported the amended resolution, which was adopted by a vote of 55–0–3 (Belgium, Norway, Peru).

7. Administrative Unions.—This question, which has been a troublesome one in a number of previous sessions, had a most satisfactory outcome this year. Largely due to US initiative the resolution proposed by the General Assembly’s Committee on Administrative Unions was comprehensive, reasonable, and acceptable to us. This resolution, with minor modifications, was adopted in the Fourth Committee by a vote of 43–5 (Soviets) –3 (Belgium, Luxembourg, South Africa) and in the plenary by a vote of 49–5 (Soviets) –1 (Belgium). The controversial proposal initially made by Brazil to refer the question of administrative unions to the ICJ was not pressed to a vote.

8. South West Africa.—Consideration of this controversial question was, as the result of a suggestion made by Brazil, postponed until the Eighth Session and life of the Ad Hoc Committee on South West Africa was extended. The postponement resolution, which the U.S. and El Salvador joined Brazil in sponsoring, was adopted in Committee by a vote of 27–8–5, and in plenary by a vote of 45–2–8.

other issues

Assembly action on other issues is summarized below. The U.S. voted for all of these resolutions.

a. Social Conditions in Non-Self-Governing Territories (resolution approving the NSGT Committee’s report on social conditions)—adopted in plenary by a vote of 45–5 (Soviets) –2 (Belgium, France).

b. Racial Discrimination in Non-Self-Governing Territories (resolution recommending steps to abolish all discriminatory practices in such territories)—adopted in plenary by a vote of 51–0–1 (South Africa).

c. Educational, Economic, and Social Policies in Non-Self-Governing Territories (resolution involving reporting by the Administering Authorities on their implementation of NSGT Committee reports)—adopted by a vote of 47–2 (Belgium, France) –8.

d. Report of the Trusteeship Council (resolution noting this report)—adopted by a vote of 46–0–5 (Soviets).

e. Hearing of petitioners from the Trust Territory of Cameroons under French Administration (resolution referring action on this matter to the Trusteeship Council)—adopted by a vote of 38–0–6 (Soviets, France).

f. Hearing of Petitioners from the Trust Territory of Somaliland under Italian Administration (resolution referring action on this matter to the Trusteeship Council)—adopted by a vote of 47–1 (Belgium) –10.

general conclusions

While it is difficult to generalize as to the trends which characterized the Fourth Committee this year, it is clear that the U.S. has found it increasingly difficult to persuade the Committee to take moderate “middle ground” action. On many Fourth Committee issues the middle ground between the traditional colonial powers and the more critical non-administering members has diminished, sometimes practically to the vanishing point. The moderate group in this Committee, which fluctuates in composition, is frequently neither sufficiently large nor well organized to carry moderate or compromise proposals. Furthermore, it generally emerges only during the course of the session in reaction to extreme proposals. The Charter requirement of a two-thirds majority for plenary decisions on trusteeship questions acts as a restraining factor and at this session was a vital element in preventing the adoption of certain proposals highly prejudicial to the Administering Members, which might well have restricted their further participation in this aspect of UN work. It is evident that efforts must be made to strengthen this safeguard and extend its application to the increasingly important questions arising in the field of non-self-governing territories. In conclusion, however, it can be said that a number of difficulties foreseen for this session of the Fourth Committee were avoided and that the U.S. middle position achieved certain successes in terms of the resolutions finally adopted. The U.S. also succeeded in retaining a considerable degree of prestige and sympathy among a large number of the non-administering countries.

1. The summary records of the Fourth Committee and the General Assembly are published by the United Nations at New York in the Official Records of the General Assembly (session as appropriate; in this case the Seventh Regular Session). A rich source is the Annexes which are printed for each General Assembly session. These include individually printed fascicules of as many pages as required to set forth a complete legislative history of each agenda item, with texts of important documents and a check list of all relevant documentation. Taking the subjects reported in the instant document as an example, the reference source for paragraphs numbered 1, 2, and 3, would be United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventh Session, Annexes, fascicule for agenda item 33. This was a composite of 17 pages covering agenda items 33–36, all relating to information from non-self-governing territories under Article 73(e) of the United Nations Charter; there was additionally a second fascicule for agenda item 36 containing the Report of the Ad Hoc Committe on Factors (Non-Self-Governing Territories). Continuing with the subjects of the instant document, there were fascicules in the 1952 Annexes for numbered paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, as follows: agenda item 32 (Ewe and Togoland unification question), agenda item 31 (administrative unions), and agenda item 38 (South West Africa). There were none for numbered paragraphs 4 and 5, as these were not inscribed items on the agenda.

   Many of the events relating to non-self-governing territories and trusteeship question, at this as at other General Assemblies, were not reported separately by the U.S. Delegation and were included in the mass of detail making up the daily telegraphic summaries from the delegation to the Department of State. These are divided in the Department of State files between classified and unclassified summaries, are located in file 320, and include reporting on public events at the United Nations and official conversations between members of the U.S. Delegation and advisory staff and their counterparts in other national delegations. In respect of this particular General Assembly, there is also a complete collection of memoranda of conversations in which Ambassador Jessup was engaged or in which he had a direct interest, in the UNP files, lot 60 D 268.

2. As this item was not originally on the General Assembly’s agenda, no Department position paper was prepared on the subject; a plenary position paper, Doc. US/A/3572, Dec. 20, 1952 (IO files, lot 71 D 440) relates to a specific rather than a general question, that of hearings of petitioners from the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under French administration.

   Regarding the visa aspect of the question, the U.S. Government from the outset sought to speed up the processing of visa applications of those who had been granted oral hearings by the Fourth Committee and a rather extensive exchange of cables resulted on this between the Department of State and the field (Accra, Paris. Rome, Dakar, Lagos, Addis Ababa, Cairo, Leopoldville, Dar es Salam, Nairobi, and the Mission at the United Nations). For certain details on this problem, see the Gerig memorandum of Mar. 13, 1953, p. 1307. Rather full documentation is found in the ODA files, lot 62 D 225, “Visa Applications—Oral Hearings”. There is a scattered documentation on this subject in the S/A file, lot 53 D 65, “UNGA 1952—4th Committee”.

3. A useful file of published and unpublished documents is in the ODA files, lot 62 D 225, “Wa–Meru.” Telegraphic reporting is in the daily unclassified summaries; see particularly an extended report of Committee 4 meetings on Dec. 3, 1952, daily unclassified summary No. 117, telegram Delga 311. Dec. 3, 1952. 11:40 p.m. (320/12–352). A useful document in ODA files, lot 62 D 225 is the Office of Intelligence Research’s Report No. 5946 of Feb. 24, 1953, entitled “Native Interests and Land Distribution in East Africa: A Case Study.”