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

320/11–1252: Telegram

The Head of the United States Delegation at the United Nations (Acheson) to the Department of State

confidential
priority

New York, November 12, 1952—10:27 p.m.

Delga 182. Re racial conflict in South Africa.

In several conversations today, Dayal and Pant (India) conveyed to us answer of Ind del to suggestions contained in two draft resolutions given by Sprague to Madame Pandit yesterday (Delga 168).¹ Dayal and Pant said that Ind del discussed two papers very thoroughly and reached fol conclusions:

1. They cld not agree to an overall inquiry into racial relations. They are concerned with “festering sore” in South Africa, which in their view endangers security of whole continent and of internatl peace. They feel UN must deal with this particular problem of South Africa. While there might be many “pimples” of racial discrimination disease throughout globe, Ind del is not concerned with these “minor difficulties”. Ind purpose wld be defeated by agreeing to submersion of crucial problem into an overall academic study which wld only sidetrack urgent situation in South Africa. Gen problem of racial relations is already under study in various other UN organs, UNESCO, etc. Inds see no point in studying race problems outside South Africa, e.g. in Latin America, US or India where development is in right direction. Gen inquiry, moreover, wld “scare” many dels.

2. As regards generalized res not providing for commission, Pant said it contains an “admirable statement” of policy. Purpose of Ind del is to ensure continuing concern of UN in this problem through fact-finding procedure. This purpose cld not be satisfied by generalized res.

As result of Ind position, fol questions arise:

a. Shld US del discretely induce some other dels to introduce generalized res without any commission along lines of our draft (Delga 141)² as amended by Gadel 44?³ Unden (Sweden) took line in comite this morning which wld fit this concept. He and perhaps other Scandinavians as well as some LA del cld be approached. By being able to vote for res along these lines, we wld avoid completely negative attitude on this issue. There is, of course, possibility this res might be amended so as to become unacceptable to us. Another possibility is comite might adopt both this generalized res and Ind res providing for commission of inquiry into South African situation.

b. What shld US del position be on Ind res which we understand has been submitted tonight by eighteen dels?⁴

These questions will be considered in US del meeting Nov. 13⁵ in light of Dept’s instructions (Gadel 35)⁶ and we shall advise Dept of results.

Acheson

1. Dated Nov. 11, supra.
2. Not printed, but see editorial note, p. 973.
3. See footnote 2, supra.
4. The 18 delegations were: Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burma, Egypt, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Philippines, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. For text, see UN document A/AC.61/L8/Rev. 1.
5. The minutes of the delegation meeting, not printed, contain a summary of previous events and a discussion as to how the United States would vote. (Minutes of the Eleventh Meeting of the United States Delegation to the Seventh Regular Session of the United Nations General Assembly, Nov. 13, 1952; IO files, lot 71 D 440, US/A/M(Chr)/248)
6. Dated Nov. 4, p. 971.