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

ODA files, lot 62 D 225, “Visa Applications—Oral Hearings”

Memorandum by the Officer in Charge of Trusteeship Affairs (McKay) to the Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs (Gerig)

restricted

[Washington, September 2, 1953.]

Background Information Note on the Problem of Oral Hearings¹

Arguments for and against oral hearings are set forth below:

arguments for oral hearings

1. The growing tendency of the Fourth Committee to grant oral hearings is a reflection of the widespread concern in the international community on the colonial question. Not only is there great public sympathy for petitioners but some observers have singled out the petitions process as the most vital and significant part of United Nations activities in the colonial field. The sessions of the Trusteeship Council and the Fourth Committee which attract the largest public interest and the greatest number of press correspondents are those at which oral petitioners appear.

2. The granting of oral hearings is an effective way of focusing world attention on colonial problems, and of making its influence felt in colonial administration.

3. Oral hearings give representatives a chance to question the petitioners, and enable the General Assembly to obtain more information as well as a better understanding of indigenous points of view.

4. Oral hearings give the indigenous inhabitants more of a chance to familiarize themselves with the nature and significance of United Nations activities.

5. The Fourth Committee in certain instances may be an effective safety valve in which discontented petitioners can let off steam.

6. The United States would derive considerable propaganda value in the cold war from a liberal position toward the granting of oral hearings. This is particularly true because of the widespread attitude that our position on colonial questions is unnecessarily negative and legalistic.

arguments against oral hearings

1. It is impracticable for an organization of sixty states to grant oral hearings to private individuals or organizations.

2. The General Assembly should not unnecessarily lengthen its work by the indiscriminate granting of oral hearings when it is trying to save money and to reduce the length of its sessions.

3. If the Fourth Committee were to grant a large number of oral hearings concerning trust territories, or if it were to grant any oral hearings concerning non-self-governing territories, a number of the administering authorities might be antagonized to the point of non-cooperation in these United Nations activities.

4. Oral hearings give the Soviet Delegation and other extreme anti-colonial powers an unnecessary and undesirable opportunity to exploit the United Nations for their own propaganda purposes.

5. The granting of oral hearings unnecessarily magnifies and distorts the grievances of petitioners and sometimes actually tends to create unnecessary problems.

6. The opportunity for oral hearings before the Fourth Committee tends to encourage political irresponsibility on the part of ambitious politicians, and over-reliance on the United Nations to solve problems which can best be solved by the people of the territories themselves.

1. This document was prepared in connection with the informative Department of State position paper on oral hearings (Doc. SD/A/C.4/120, Sept. 5, 1953, “The General Problem of Oral Hearings in the Fourth Committee”, not printed (IO files)). In a note to Gerig attached to the memorandum, McKay explained that the problem had been thoroughly “worked” within the Office of Dependent Area Affairs; and that it had been decided to draft the “pro and con arguments” separately, as “they help to clarify our thinking on the problem”. Gerig subsequently appended to the document’s title the words “in the Fourth Committee”.