Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Africa and South Asia, Volume XI, Part 1

845A.411/10–2254: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations

confidential

Washington, October 22, 1954—8:10 p.m.

Gadel 62. Re Indians in South Africa.

In Department’s view inclusion Paragraphs 3 and 4 LA proposal (Delga 131)¹ virtually certain defeat purposes Paragraphs 1 and 2 which are excellent. We had hoped this year GA, after past frustrations this case, might take new tack, simply appealing to parties to resume negotiations and at most suggesting they might wish utilize mediator. In our view this approach likely to succeed only if GA resolution limited to these two points. Consequently GADel should oppose Paragraphs 3 and 4 as not only unrealistic on basis past experience but also harmful since they diminish still further whatever slight chance of agreement between parties still exists.

Fact is that ever since 1950 GA has proposed to parties they utilize mediatory machinery under UN auspices or established by UN. Every such suggestion has failed. South Africa has made plain it is willing to negotiate only outside UN. We believe time has come to test sincerity this avowal. Paragraph 3 closely parallels GA Resolution 511 (VI) which authorized Secretary General, if parties unable agree establishment three-man commission, to lend his assistance to parties in negotiations and further in his discretion and after consulting governments concerned to appoint individual to render assistance. When he explored possibilities this course with parties, South Africa replied that since it did not recognize GA’s jurisdiction, it regretted it could not recognize SYG’s competence to take above action. SYG then reported to GA that, as result of consultations with parties, appointment of individual not opportune. We see no point in directing SYG to repeat virtually same performance with no prospect success and with what can only be unfortunate effects upon his own prestige and that of UN. Same reasoning is basis Department’s views Gadel 53² that UN connection any mediator should be minimized to greatest extent feasible.

In connection earlier discussion of idea of mediator we are unclear as to procedure contemplated, particularly whether GA would name mediator directly or SYG or parties. If majority insistent upon providing method for appointment mediator in event parties unable agree, we are inclined to feel this should be authorization to SYG to assist parties with their consent.

As stated Gadels 53 and 55³ we remain convinced mediator’s efforts should be unprejudiced by any requirement for GA consideration after specified period. Under this criterion Paragraph 4, as well as time limit Paragraph 3, unacceptable. GADel should point out in strongest possible terms that inclusion such provisions in resolution are probably practical and certainly psychological handicap to mediator’s efforts. Furthermore, should developments warrant, nothing prevents any of parties from placing matter again on GA agenda, so paragraph 4 completely unnecessary.

Hoover

1. Supra.
2. Not printed. In this telegram, the Department suggested to the U.S. Mission in New York that it follow up the possibility that India might be willing to see this item dropped from future GA agendas if the General Assembly designated a “mediator”, perhaps with a neutral title such as liaison officer or good offices representative, whose task would be to assist the parties in resuming direct negotiations. The Department expressed the opinion that a GA action would have a better prospect for success if the individual appointed was simply to be available to the parties upon their initiative, if his UN character was minimized, and if it would be made clear that no further UN action was contemplated unless and until the mediator reported that such action would be fruitful. (845A.411/10–1554)
3. Referenced telegram reads: “Department has noted Indian desire have US national named mediator but that Menon now says GOI would oppose action to drop matter from GA agenda, thus continuing repetitive and unproductive discussion of matter at each future GA session. GADel should inform Menon we could not consider selection US national if in effect deadline to his efforts set by automatic referral matter next GA. As indicated Gadel 53 we feel strongly if mediator designated there should be no provision for further UN action unless and until mediator himself indicates it could be useful.” (845A.411/10–2054)