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

845A.411/9–1252: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in India¹

confidential

Washington, September 29, 1952—5:18 p.m.

943. In response urtels 1086² and 1088³ fol is Dept’s preliminary thinking on SoAfr racial question submitted to GA:

1. We view this new question in context our gen pol on UN consideration charges of violation of human lights:

(a) Preamble of Charter, Art 1, para 3 and Arts 55 and 56 brought promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms within scope of Charter. On other hand, Art 2, para 7 prohibits UN intervention in matters essentially within domestic jurisdiction.

(b) Within wide limits rights of individual in relation to community in which he lives must be determined by his community. Normally, we must accept judgment of each community as to rights and freedoms of its citizens.

(c) However, in our view, Art 2, para 7 cld not be intended to put an absolute ban on consideration in UN of situations involving charges of governmental policy of systematic and widespread violations of provisions of Charter.

(d) Whether or not a specific measure by UN wld constitute technical intervention within meaning Article 2, it is matter of highest polit wisdom to proceed cautiously in this delicate field of human rights. At this stage of UN development, Assembly shld devote itself primarily to finding ways of composing differences and securing universal agreement on an acceptance of common standards of basic human rights. GA must exercise greatest care to refrain from making recommendations which might not only be ignored but may in fact create greater intransigence and aggravate position of individuals most deserving of our sympathy and assistance.

2. US followed above gen policy in GA in case concerning treatment Inds in South Africa. When wave of indignation brought before UN mass persecutions of religious and polit groups in satellite countries we followed same gen policy. However while in Ind case GOI urged and obtained our support for its complaint, Ind rep in satellite case assumed attitude of detached silence throughout extensive debate in 3 GA sessions and abstained on every measure, however moderate, adopted by large majority of GA.

3. According to our present thinking US will vote for inclusion of new question on GA agenda. However considerable number UN membs take more conservative view as to UN jurisdiction in this field than US. They will probably point out that in satellite case, independently of Charter provisions, there existed express peace treaty provisions obligating ex-enemy states to assure basic human rights to their people; similarly in Ind case long history of intl negots between Ind and Union made this question of intl concern quite aside from Charter provisions on human rights. In new case, however, they will argue, Assembly wld deal for first time with complaint of human rights violations solely on basis of Charter provisions which under Art 2(7) it cannot do. Consequently if we are correct that there will be genuine difference of opinion on GA jurisdiction the US is inclined to the view that GA shld request advisory opinion from ICJ. Reference to ICJ may make it more difficult for Govt of Union of SA to seize upon GA consideration of this question as pretext for its withdrawal from UN. We wld deplore withdrawal of any memb or group of membs from UN. We do not wish Union of SA to withdraw. Its continued membership in UN might in long run be moderating element in its policies.

4. US is distressed at intensification of racial conflict in SA. Fundamental principles of Amer democracy, embodied in UN Charter necessarily lead US Govt to disapprove any policy of governmentally imposed racial discrimination. If Assembly proceeds to consider question we shall seek to help through temperate discussion bring out intl concern over situation. We feel that beyond such expression of concern, an Assembly res cld not ameliorate situation and might only stiffen Union determination to carry racial policies to critical extremes. We believe condemnation of Union wld be harmful because it is not practical means to help those whom we wish to help. We shall also stress that violation of human rights are occurring not only in SA but also elsewhere in world, notably beyond Iron Curtain, and that GA shld not lose sight of overall situation and necessity for all govts (including US Govt) do their best in promoting actively universal respect for human rights. GOI will agree that none of us are perfect and that all of us in UN must exercise greatest self-restraint in castigating frailties which in varying degrees we all share.

In this connection we were interested note statements made by Ind rep on UN Subcomm on Prevention of Discrimination on Sep 24 pointing out evils of discrimination exist in different form in his own country as well as others and all charges shld be approached with detached air without “holier than thou” attitude.

Acheson

1. This telegram was repeated for information to Pretoria and to New York.
2. Evidently misnumbered. Telegram 1186 sent from New Delhi on Sept. 17, 1952 informed the Department that the Indian Ministry for External Affairs had requested a response to its aide-mémoire, as described in New Delhi 1088. (845A.411/9–1752)
3. Not printed. In this telegram, Ambassador Chester Bowles, on Sept. 12, 1952, reported that he had received from the Indian Government an aide-mémoire conveying the Indian intention to propose that the current session of the UN General Assembly consider a resolution which recommended a change in South Africa’s racial policy so as to conform to the UN Charter. The Indian Government intended to raise this matter independently from the question of Indians in South Africa, and it had urged the United States to support its position. Bowles “earnestly” hoped that the Department of State could associate itself with the Indian effort, as it would “mean much in strengthening US position [in] Asia [and] help convince doubters as to our basic views on racial discrimination.” Bowles maintained that this issue was of “utmost importance to GOI” and he emphasized that India and other Asian nations viewed this General Assembly session as “indeed test of effectiveness? of UN itself in providing a forum for non-Commie liberal viewpoint.” (854A.411/9–1252)