ODA files, lot 62 D 225, “Visa Applications–Oral Hearings”
Memorandum by the Officer in Charge, Trusteeship Affairs (McKay) to the Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (Gerig)
- Subject:
- French Objections to Oral Hearings in the Trusteeship Council of Petitioners from the French Cameroons
In connection with the preparation of a position paper on the question of the hearing of petitioners from the French Cameroons at the Twelfth Session of the Trusteeship Council, I telephoned Mr. Francis Hure of the French Delegation this morning. In response to my question, Mr. Hure informed me that upon instructions from Paris the French Delegation had informed the Acting President of the Trusteeship Council, through the Secretary-General, that the French Delegation objected to the granting of oral hearings in the Trusteeship Council to representatives of the Traditional Assembly of the Douala people (T/Pet.5/L.7) and to representatives of the Bamileke people (T/Pet.5/L.9). You will recall that under Rule 80, paragraph 2, the President of the Council is authorized, between sessions of the Council, through the Secretary-General, to inform any petitioner who requests an opportunity for an oral presentation or petition that the Council will grant him a hearing at such time or place as the President may name. However, before communicating such information to the petitioner, the President “shall inquire of the Administering Authority or authorities concerned whether there are substantial reasons why the matter should first be discussed in the Council.” The French notification to the UN was therefore made in response to a request from the Acting President of the Council through the Secretary-General. If the French had raised no objection, the President presumably could then have invited the petitioners to appear without consulting the Council. Since the French did object, however, the matter presumably will be discussed in the Council.
Mr. Hure said that his Government had not yet given the French Delegation detailed instructions but that, when the matter arose in the Council, he thought that his Delegation would oppose both requests for oral hearings on the grounds that the Council already has sufficient information on the subjects which the petitioners wished to discuss. In response to a further question, he stated that he thought his Delegation would be quite satisfied to have all questions relating to the French Cameroons postponed until the thirteenth session on the grounds that the next full discussion on French Cameroons problems was scheduled for that session. He hoped, however, that if the Council did take such a decision, it would not word its decision in such a way as to grant oral hearings for petitioners from the French Cameroons at the thirteenth [Page 1314] session. He felt that his Government would oppose such a decision as it did not want the Council to hear the petitioners at any time.
In elaborating on French thinking on the general problem of oral hearings, Mr. Hure said that his Government was increasingly concerned by the number of requests for such hearings. He implied that his Government would therefore take a more strict attitude of opposition toward oral hearings than in the past. With regard to the Cameroons unification question, for example, his Government felt that the movement was an artificial one and that the granting of oral hearings would be against the interests of the Cameroons peoples because it would only publicize the unification question and thereby stimulate further agitation and unrest in the Territory.