Office of the Historian

317. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to Certain Diplomatic Posts0

Washington, July 19, 1963, 8:58 p.m.

117. Deptel 168 to USUN1 outlines position US will take in SC on Portuguese territories. This message provides broader framework in which both South Africa and Portuguese questions will be treated, including legal aspects. We believe it would be helpful to achievement of our objectives in SC for other Council members to have general preview of our position both on substance of problem and on legal issues posed, since question whether action to be taken falls under Chapter VI or Chapter VII of Charter directly affects character of action to be taken.

1)

Apartheid. (a) US remains basically opposed to apartheid and will support resolution reaffirming UN disapproval of apartheid and recommendation of embargo on arms suitable for enforcement of apartheid. (b) We foresee however that African members likely seek much more drastic and far-reaching action, including mandatory (Chapter VII) sanctions and expulsion. US could not support such far-reaching measures since we do not believe they would help promote peaceful solution of problem and—in case of more extreme sanctions—are unlikely be effectively implemented. (c) We also believe Council should recommend SYG appoint high-level special representative such as past GA President to discuss with South Africans how their racial policies could be brought into conformity with Charter. We believe above course permits us to reaffirm our dedication to eradication of apartheid by peaceful means while avoiding measures against South Africa to which we could not agree in principle.

Secretary has already described to South African Ambassador above position. He emphasized US opposition to expulsion of South Africa and to mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII.

2)
Legal. Chapter VI of Charter defines powers of Security Council in “pacific settlement of disputes” and covers situations as described in Article 33 “continuance of which is likely to endanger maintenance of international peace and security.” Chapter VII concerns “Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.” For example, measures which US prepared support in resolutions on South Africa are of Chapter VI character: disapproval of apartheid, [Page 502] appointment of Special Representative and request for partial arms embargo.

In view USG, present situations in Portuguese Territories and South Africa fall in category described above by Article 33 and do not now constitute threat to or breach of peace or act of aggression in legal sense of Charter. However, some Members of UN, and two-thirds majority of GA, have previously characterized Portuguese and apartheid situations as threats to peace. Such characterizations not binding on SC, though they undoubtedly will influence character of SC’s debate.

SC typically has not made explicit decision as to whether it acted under Chapter VI or Chapter VII. In Dept’s view, it would not be desirable for SC now to engage in debate or to take formal action designed to establish under what chapter SC acts. Rather, focus of Council’s consideration from outset should be on what concrete steps it can take which may advance peaceful solution of Portuguese and apartheid problems.

We have begun discussions with Africans. Secretary informed Mongi Slim (Tunisia) of general elements of US position in both cases. While Slim insisted some form of “sanction” necessary, he gave definite impression Africans wished SC action to result from negotiated agreement. Resolution of type described above we hope provides basis for SC action which Africans might be prepared acquiesce, although way tactical situation in SC may develop is unpredictable.

USUN has already been requested in Deptel 1512 to inform UK, French and Norwegian dels generally of our position. Other action addressees should draw on above with FonOff as appropriate. Rio, Caracas, Manila and Taipei should make full presentation.

Rusk
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 10 PORT/AFRICA. Confidential. Drafted by Brown and Schwebel on July 18; cleared by Tasca, Burdett, Meeker, and Sisco; and approved by Cleveland. Sent to USUN, London, Pretoria, Paris, Oslo, Rio de Janeiro, Caracas, Manila, Accra, Rabat, Taipei, Tunis, Monrovia, Tananarive, and Freetown and repeated to Lagos, Dar-es-Salaam, Leopoldville, Lisbon, Lourenco Marques, and Luanda.↩
  2. Document 368.↩
  3. Dated July 17. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 10 PORT/AFRICA)↩