Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXIV, Africa

650. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission to the United Nations¹

Washington, November 28, 1967, 0113Z.

75384. Subj: South West Africa.

1. As indicated in report of SWA Council, Afro-Asians and LAs can be expected in forthcoming plenary debate press for Security Council action to implement GA injunction that SWA Council take over SWA. South African actions implementing Odendaal recommendations, trial of 36 South West Africans under Terrorism Act, and SAG refusal to communicate with SWA Council will serve to increase pressures for strong UN action. Nevertheless, in keeping with guidance contained in SWA position paper Dept continues to oppose coercive measures as impractical and sees little possibility that any resolution on implementation GA Res 2145 which US could support could be adopted.

2. It likely that current trial of 36 South West Africans under the Terrorism Act will play large part in GA considerations. As Mission aware, Joel Carlson, defense attorney of 36 South West Africans, proposed during recent US visit that friendly Governments introduce Res (septel), in current UNGA referring questions on legality Terrorism Act and trial to International Court of Justice.² Dual purpose of Res would be to exert international pressure on SAG to mitigate sentences of those now being tried, and over longer term, strengthen legal case against continued SA administration of SWA.

3. Carlson has worked out with Professor Richard Falk of Princeton a model Res, which they have shown or discussed with US, UK, Swedish, Ethiopian and other representatives to UN, as well as members UNSec. Falk told DeptOffs that he has made effort canvass as many African Dels as possible to promote support for Res. Dept unaware African reactions but understands that Ethiopians have undertaken to discuss Res with other ASAF Dels.

4. Dept has original Carlson/Falk draft under study and is not now prepared take decision on its utility. We fully cognizant chances GA adoption this approach are marginal and we would not wish US to be identified as sponsor. Our preliminary reaction is that Res is not harmful to our interests and might have some merit if properly handled. Although some may look on it as a legal substitute for direct political action, it need not conflict with political actions in UN re replacement South African administration. Appears, however, that extensive changes original text Res may be desirable to attract necessary wide support in UNGA and to guard against repeat unhelpful ICJ opinion as in 1966. From this standpoint, it regrettable that Carlson/Falk’s broad exploration may already have involved Dels and others who may not be helpful. We understand, for example, that Reddy (UNSec) favorably disposed toward ICJ referral but by SC rather than UNGA.

5. Dept would be particularly interested in information regarding African reactions Carlson/Falk model Res. Suggest Mission undertake discreet consultations with UK and Swedish Missions to ascertain their views and any info they may have re ASAFS.³

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 19 SW AFR/UN. Confidential; Limdis. Drafted by McHenry and Martin Jacobs of IO/UNP; cleared by Clark, Runyon, Gley-steen, and Philip B. Heymann of U (info only); and approved by Popper. Repeated to Pretoria.
2. The text of the proposed resolution was transmitted in telegram 75385 to Pretoria, November 28. (Ibid.)
3. On December 16, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 2324 (XXII), co-sponsored by the United States and 72 other countries, calling on South Africa to discontinue the “illegal” trial of the 37 South West Africans. For text, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1967, pp. 270–271.