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

320/12–352: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France¹

confidential
priority

Washington, December 3, 1952—3:08 p.m.

3153. First substantive pt likely to come up Tunisian debate now scheduled start tomorrow afternoon is question of admitting Tunisian rep.² Text US remarks as now approved and which will be made by Jessup fols:

• “1. My govt is opposed to having this comite invite Salah Ben Youssef (a representative of the Bey Tunis) to participate in our present debate.
• 2. Situation which we are here considering has caused concern to many states who are anxious Tunisian question be amicably resolved. At this time however, we are not gathering evidence from which to pass judgment on merits controversy. It wld be most unfortunate for GA in this case and at this time attempt convert itself into court. Regardless legal validity or wisdom such course action, let me point out it wld require special and extended procedures that might take several yrs. I do not think we wish embark such course this GA.

• 3. If question is one of determining whether presence of ————— wld be practically advantageous in terms of aiding us to reach approp disposition of this item on our agenda, my del feels that answer wld be in negative. As we shall undertake explain in more detail later, we feel only possible way in which matter can be handled is for Assembly help create atmosphere favorable continued friendly negots between France and Tunisia. We do not believe that participation Mr. ——— in our debates wld be conducive to creating that atmosphere.

  It seems to us that at this stage of controversy primary function of comite is to let all members UN express, and if possible, reconcile different judgments and policies their govt with respect this question. In this way both parties may become aware of views of members UN which, however divergent, I am sure will be unanimously in favor peaceful settlement of controversy. (Immed preceding sentence to be redrafted.)

  (Note: Fol paras nos 4 and 5 are not to be included if rep of Bey is to be invited.)

• 4. Posit we are taking here is based upon concept of function of GA and its comites which we have consistently upheld since beginning UN. We have consistently advocated that GA shld be most liberal in permitting participation in its deliberation of states and of de facto governing auths but shld, on other hand exercise great care in permitting any participation in its discussion by indivs or non-governmental groups. More than five yrs ago, in spring of 1947, GA was confronted with some 13 requests of non-governmental orgs to be heard on Palestine question. AmbAustin strongly opposed motion which wld have permitted participation these non-governmental orgs in GA deliberation, and he was ably supported this posit by many members of GA, including reps Egypt and Syria. I am glad to say that view of US and of Egypt and Syria was supported by majority in this case.

  Practice of GA that has evolved over period of yrs is to permit participation of individuals, as opposed to states, only under exceptional circumstances. While it is true that on number of occasions individuals have been permitted to participate in debates Comite 4, this is clearly one of exceptional circumstances. This was well pointed out as far back as 1947 by reps of Syria, who stated: ‘In refutation this point of view, I need add nothing to what has already been said by rep of US. He has referred to Arts 2, 32, 35 and particularly to Art 10. It seems to me Art 71 is exception confirming general rule that in regs and procedure of UN—and particularly in procedure—arrangements suggested can be applied only to Econ and Soc Council and not other organs, because it is specifically stated only states may take part in discussions of other positions.’ Other instance where a Polit Comite permitted extensive participation by non-governmental orgs and groups—matter of disposition former Ital colonies—was likewise exceptional situation in that GA was called upon impose on all parties a compulsory and binding decision concerning disposition former Ital colonies. In this situation, Polit Comite had no choice but to hear views of all elements of population of various colonies and embarked upon complicated, elaborate and extraordinary procedures over period several yrs in order carry on its extraordinary functions. Let me reiterate that we have consistently taken position over yrs that except in special circumstances, and such special circumstances do not here exist, discussion in Polit Comite GA shld be confined to states.

• 5. Let me further point out that not in any instance in history GA has a Polit Comite permitted participation in its discussion of rep non-governmental org or group contrary to wishes of governing auths responsible for territory.
• 6. I repeat that what we are dealing with is purely matter of how best comite can order its work. From this point of view it is difficult to see how participation of Salah Ben Youssef (rep of Bey of Tunis) wld assist GA to advance toward objective this debate.”

Impossible predict now when Jessup will make this statement and gen statement but are instructing USUN wire you niact soonest so that you may set your release dates in Paris.³

Acheson

1. This telegram was drafted by Knight, who also signed for the Secretary.

2. On Oct. 28, at a meeting between members of the U.S. and French Delegations, the French said they could not agree to any form of Tunisian participation in Committee I. The French position was that under their treaty rights France was responsible for the foreign affairs of Tunisia, and there could be no concessions on that point. (Memorandum of conversation, Oct. 28, 1952; S/A–Jessup files, lot 53 D 65, “Tunisia, Memoranda of conversation”) On Nov. 14, Salah Ben Youssef, a Tunisian representative of the Bey who was at the UN session, and Bahi Ladgham, director of the Tunisian office in New York, met with Ambassador Jessup and Edwin Plitt. They asked for help in seeking “a more forward looking mutually acceptable association between France and Tunisia,” but did not specifically ask the United States to support their participation in Committee I. (Memorandum of conversation, Nov. 14, 1952; S/A–Jessup files, lot 53 D 65, “Tunisia, Memoranda of conversation”)

   A draft memorandum on the question of Tunisian participation, dated Nov. 15, listed the relevant precedents in the United Nations governing participation in the Political Committees of the General Assembly of representatives of de facto authorities and nongovernmental organizations and groups. It suggested that the United States oppose all attempts to hear nongovernmental Tunisian groups and stated that this position was legally and politically strong enough to receive substantial support from many other delegations. The situation with regard to hearing a representative of the Tunisian Government was entirely different. The contention that only the French Government was entitled to speak for Tunisia in foreign affairs would receive practically no support in the General Assembly. The memorandum concluded that preventing a representative of the Tunisian Government from participation by attacking his representation status was unpromising, and that it seemed preferable to resist such a request on general political grounds. (US/A/C.1/2541; S/A–Jessup files, lot 53 D 65, “Tunisia”) The Jessup files contain other memoranda discussing various points in the Nov. 15 memorandum, but no document stating when or how the final decision was reached. A memorandum by Plitt, dated Nov. 20, noted that Salah Ben Youssef had been sitting in the Committee I deliberations with the Lebanese and Iraqi Delegations. French Delegates had protested to them and also to the Committee I Chairman.

3. On Dec. 10, after a debate in which 27 representatives took part, Committee I rejected a motion by Pakistan requesting the Bey of Tunis to appoint a representative to sit in on the committee debate. Ambassador Jessup spoke and voted against the invitation to the Bey. Warren E. Hewitt and Leonard C. Meeker, L/UNA, members of the U.S. Delegation, sent a memorandum to Ambassador Jessup, dated Dec. 12, concerning the statement of Dec. 10. They stated they were surprised to note the emphasis on the legal argument against an invitation to the Bey to send a representative. According to Hewitt and Meeker, an early position paper on Tunisia provided for U.S. concurrence in such an invitation, reflecting the view that such a procedure was legally proper; after the United States learned of French opposition, the decision was made to oppose the hearing of Tunisian representatives. Hewitt and Meeker understood that the changed position was based on policy considerations, rather than legal ones, and that public statements would reflect that fact. The memorandum concluded with a list of reasons why U.S. opposition should not be based on legal grounds. (S/A–Jessup files, lot 53 D 65, “Tunisia”)