258. Memorandum From the Deputy Legal Adviser of the Department of State (Meeker) to the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Cleveland)1

SUBJECT

  • Portugal and South Africa in United Nations Bodies

While I went along with Nat McKitterick’s proposal to delete the specific reference to Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter in the formula on South Africa’s participation in the Economic Commission for South Africa, I continue to feel that the question of South Africa’s conformity with Charter obligations remains a highly relevant one.2 We do not want to take the position that, when a United Nations Member’s policies reach a certain level of unpopularity, that Member’s further participation can simply be declared incompatible and the Member in effect excluded. The significant thing about the South African situation is that its highly “unpopular” policies of racial discrimination and apartheid constitute a systematic violation of solemn obligations laid down in the UN Charter. This affords a far firmer ground for an “incompatibility” formula than a set of national policies which are merely highly distasteful to a majority of the UN membership.

I agree with you that “klieg light diplomacy” of exposing through the UN what is in fact going on in the different countries of the world is a powerful means of inducing better conduct on the part of governments. One of the weaknesses of the Human Rights Commission has been its theoretical inability to consider actual situations in particular countries, and the restriction of its activities to the realm of the abstract. In effect, the General Assembly and even the Security Council have come to fill this vacuum in the more egregious instances.

I would favor putting this function on a more regular and organized basis, as a means of promoting effectuation of the Charter’s obligations on human rights. This could prove more practical and effective than the prolonged effort expended on human rights covenants which may never be completed and which, if completed, may never be widely ratified as treaties. The Human Rights Commission could be given new terms of reference so that it could consider actual situations-making findings, measuring government performance against Charter standards, and proposing recommendations for action where this [Page 574] appeared useful. I believe we ought to give serious thought to a proposal of this kind as a means of making the Human Rights Commission a more meaningful agency for forwarding the purposes and obligations of the Charter.

  1. Source: Kennedy Library, Cleveland Papers, Human Rights, Box 19. No classification marking.
  2. McKitterick’s July 9 memorandum to Wallner is not printed. (Ibid.)