845A.411/12–1252

The Director of the Office of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs ( Raynor ) to the Ambassador in the Union of South Africa ( Gallman )

confidential

Dear Waldy: I mentioned this matter to Sappington 1 the other day but this letter should reach you well ahead of his arrival.

You undoubtedly noted the press reports that the Indians intend to raise at the General Assembly this fall another item bearing on South Africa entitled “Malanism” which, as far as we can gather, they intend as an item which would bring about a full discussion and I suppose result in their opinion in some form of censure by the Assembly of the racial policies being pursued in the Union of South Africa. I would very much like your judgment as to your feeling of what the impact of this action may be on the question of South African relations or, in fact, membership in the UN. As you know, I have long held the feeling myself that their talk about withdrawal, etc., was not by any means pure bluff. I have the feeling that this new subject, if accepted by the Assembly for discussion, may well be the straw which would break the camel’s back and at a minimum result in a complete boycott of this session of the Assembly or that it might even result in South Africa’s withdrawal from the organization. Either would be bad and the latter alternative, of course, would be very serious indeed.

In addition to your own personal opinion I hope very much that you will have the Embassy report in detail reactions in the Union as they develop. So far the South African Embassy here has not mentioned this question to us and I have not raised it with Jooste. You have seen, however, the memorandum of conversation between Ben Gerig and [Page 926] Jooste re Southwest Africa.2 As is always the case in this type of problem in the Assembly, it will be very difficult to take a position which would appear in any way to be in support of South Africa.

Of course, no one here would even think of attempting to defend the racial policies. On the other hand, there are constitutional grounds such as the domestic jurisdiction clause of the Charter which could be invoked although the chances of majority support for this in the General Assembly probably are not great. The Eur tentative position is that the Assembly should refer the competence issue to the International Court for an advisory opinion. We would probably have no allies in or out of the Department for this position. I hope, therefore, if the facts warrant it that you will “pull no punches” in reporting South African attitudes and reaction on this.

With best personal regards,

Sincerely yours,

Hayden Raynor

P.S. Your telegram 63 has just come to hand and I see Forsyth’s comment3 is very much along the line of what I feared the South African reaction might be.

I hear you are coming to Washington shortly and will look forward to discussing this whole matter with you.

  1. James C. Sappington, III, First Secretary of the Embassy at Pretoria.
  2. Not printed. Ambassador Jooste informed Benjamin Gerig, the Director of the Office of Dependent Area Affairs, that the South African Government had directed Jooste to confer with the UN Ad Hoc Committee on South West Africa and that Jooste was prepared to go “somewhat farther” than he had previously. Jooste said, however, that due to the forthcoming elections in the Union of South Africa, his aim would be to “keep the door open”, and that most likely the Committee would be unable to make a definite report to the General Assembly. Gerig and Jooste tended to agree that during the forthcoming General Assembly session it might be preferable for the Committee to consider standing on the terms of the existing mandate for South West Africa. (Memorandum of conversation by Gerig, Aug. 20, 1952; 745X.00/8–2052)
  3. Sept. 11, 1952, not printed. Forsyth told Gallman that if the Arab-Asian group introduced the subject of the passive resistance campaign within South Africa, which was a purely domestic matter, this would open the door to a “first class fight.” And if the group received any encouragement, serious consequences would follow. Forsyth was convinced that South Africa would then seriously consider withdrawing from the United Nations. On South West Africa, Forsyth said that he did not think that Jooste’s proposal to the Ad Hoc Committee on South West Africa would get very far. (745A.00/9–1152)

    Jooste’s proposal, made first on Sept. 8, 1952 and then in greater detail on Sept. 23, called for a revival of the “sacred trust”, which was the essence of the League of Nations mandate and for a revival of South Africa’s international responsibility for that trust by accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with regard to the administration of South West Africa. To that end, the Union Government suggested that a new instrument should be concluded and proposed the three remaining Principal Allied and Associated Powers on World War I—namely, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States—as the other party to the instrument. Jooste reminded the Committee that, despite the ICJ opinion of 1950, his government still maintained that the Mandate for South West Africa had lapsed with the League of Nations and that South Africa, therefore, no longer had any international responsibility with regard to the administration of South West Africa. (Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on South West Africa to the General Assembly, Nov. 21, 1952, UN document A/2261)