NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
Human Rights
315. Information Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Cleveland) to Secretary of State Rusk/1/ Washington, March 20, 1964. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 14 UN. No classification marking. Drafted by Rachel C. Nason (IO/OES). SUBJECT The Human Rights Commission wound up a four week session on March 18. Marietta Tree/2/ has been in the U.S. Chair. Since the Commission's priority assignment was preparation of a convention against racial discrimination, following up on the race declaration adopted last fall, you may be interested in the following summary:/3/ /2/U.S. Representative to the Human Rights Commission. /3/The UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was adopted by the General Assembly as Resolution 1904 (XVIII) on November 20, 1963; for text, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1963, pp. 152-155. The draft resolution referred to is a draft of UN General Assembly Resolutions 2106 A and B (XX), December 21, 1965, which adopted and opened for signature the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; for text, see ibid., 1965, pp. 160-169. The United States signed the Convention on September 28, 1966. 1. Race vs. Religion The U.S. has not opposed work on a race convention, but has taken a strong position that a draft declaration against religious intolerance, originally requested by the General Assembly for the same time as the race declaration, be ready for action by the General Assembly not later than 1964. The Human Rights Commission has succeeded in producing drafts for both instruments which ECOSOC can transmit to the General Assembly. Even though neither of these drafts is complete, they are adequate as working documents. 2. Free Speech vs. Race Hatred The issue that plagued us on the race declaration--i.e.--demand for suppression of hate organizations--arose immediately in the race convention. Thanks to Morris Abram's good work on a preliminary draft in the Subcommission on Discrimination and Minorities last January, and support gathered by our Delegation for a further adjustment in the Commission, we were able to vote for the draft provision as adopted on this point. Key wording--States agree to prohibit organizations, or the activities of organizations, as appropriate, which promote and incite racial discrimination. Article 1 defines "racial discrimination" as discrimination "in public life." 3. Anti-Semitism Mrs. Tree took the initiative in proposing an additional article in the race convention condemning anti-Semitism. This was possible because the convention covers discrimination on ethnic as well as racial grounds. The USSR tried to add a reference to "nazism, genocide and neo-nazism" to this, but stated publicly that it would support an article on anti-Semitism. Reactions from Jewish organizations and others have been highly favorable. The Commission did not have time to complete action on this article, and has passed it on with the USSR amendment. 4. Race Convention--Can we support? What next? The U.S. voted for the preamble and articles as adopted in the Commission. Thus far we have not had to state an over-all position because the draft is not complete. We hope ECOSOC may have time to complete the substantive section (only anti-Semitism is outstanding) but even so, extensive proposals on implementation and the formal articles will have to be dealt with de novo in the General Assembly. The decision is therefore some time ahead. The language adopted thus far has not presented insuperable obstacles, and if Congress adopts the Public Accommodations Title of the Civil Rights Bill, these problems will be less. We were in about this same position on the race declaration draft when it came out of the Human Rights Commission last year, but amendments in the General Assembly created great difficulties. We anticipate a similar development. 5. Religion Declaration This draft is not so far along as the race convention since it was considered only in a working party. We hope ECOSOC can deal with proposed alternatives so that it can transmit a clean text to the General Assembly. It may require some pressure from the United States to accomplish this, but we had good support in the Commission from both the Europeans and the Latin Americans, also Lebanon. The USSR has filibustered against the declaration from the start, and will undoubtedly continue.
316. Paper Prepared in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs/1/ Washington, October 14, 1964. REVISED US OBSERVATIONS ON PROPOSALS FOR INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS YEAR /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 14. No classification marking. Drafted by J. Sisco; cleared by Mark B. Trenary (OIA), Francis O. Allen (AF), Nathan A. Pelcovits (UNP), Richard B. Bilder (L/UNA), Edward B. Persons (OES), Means (Labor), Gates (HEW), Roger Pineau (CU/MPP), Constantine Warvariv (OES), Francis M. Rogerson (US-CRR); and approved by Sisco. This paper is an enclosure to airgram A-89 to USUN, which authorized using the paper in corridor conversations with colleagues but not submitted to the Secretary-General. Throughout its history the United States has attached particular importance to human rights, and welcomes the action designating 1968, the twentieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as International Human Rights Year. We appreciate the efforts of the officers of the committee in preparing the working paper submitted by the chairman,/2/ and offer the following preliminary comments on the issues before the Committee. /2/Not identified. Dividing the year into periods for emphasis on different aspects of human rights should help greatly in assuring attention in every country to the full scope of the Universal Declaration and the importance of each of the fundamental concepts which give meaning to human dignity and equality. The listing in paragraph 14 indicates a division by months and we would favor this approach. While the suggested headings provide basic coverage, we would like to see greater emphasis on ways individuals can seek protection and redress when they feel their rights have been violated. One possibility would be to associate "the right to effective remedy" with "equality before the law." We hope that human rights year can strengthen concern for implementation through international as well as national measures. At the international level, Committee 3 discussion of implementation proposals during the 19th General Assembly may provide adequate study materials. We are not aware of any comprehensive survey of national machinery. Many countries have recently been moving for improvement, and the Committee should plan promptly to obtain an information document. A study might be undertaken by an expert body such as the Subcommission on Discrimination and Minorities, or the Secretary General might be asked to prepare an analysis of present institutions. Specific projects along the line of those proposed are the key to citizen participation in human rights observances, as well as to effective cooperation by the many agencies of government. In order to profit by the experience and capacities of both the specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations in consultative status, representatives of these groups might be included in an informal working party to consider these proposals. The non-governmental organizations are in a particularly effective position to relate the objectives of human rights year to the needs of individuals; where these organizations have local programs, they may be able to initiate community audits. With regard to the specific suggestions put forward in the working paper, the US would like to add one proposal, namely, that a permanent human rights exhibit be given a prominent place in the public entrance to UN headquarters. Such an exhibit would contribute to the goal of increasing individual awareness of human rights. Also, with regard to UNESCO, we believe it might be asked to undertake a major effort to enlist the cooperation of academic institutions, in addition to promoting artistic events. We believe it is premature at this time, to make any recommendation with regard to a Conference on Human Rights in 1968. More thorough and careful consideration than has thus far been possible needs to be given to the type and form that the observance and celebration of the 20th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration might take. We do believe, however, that steps can be initiated to prepare the way for an effective, realistic and meaningful celebration. The regional seminars, to be organized in 1966 and 1967 under the Human Rights Advisory Services Program, and which include representatives of non-governmental organizations as well as government representatives, can provide a broad base for consultation on the extent of progress and evaluation of techniques which have been useful in advancing human rights. As necessary, awards under the fellowship program could be used to assure adequate and meaningful documentation. We favor intensification of national efforts in connection with the 1968 Human Rights Year, and share the hope that these will aid in the achievement of longstanding objectives. However, we believe the form in which some of these objectives are stated in para. 40 of the working paper tends to diminish the scope and promise of these rights and freedoms. As was demonstrated in the supplementary convention on the abolition of slavery adopted in 1956, understanding of the varied forms of slavery has expanded greatly in the thirty years since the 1926 convention was developed under the League of Nations. Similarly, an enlarged understanding is apparent in the declarations and conventions on discrimination now under consideration in the United Nations, and has also been apparent with regard to the nature of self-determination and independence. One of the virtues of the Universal Declaration is that its implications grow as our understanding grows, and we should be careful not to cut back on its potential scope and increasing impact. For this reason, we suggest that the plan for 1968 take as objectives the organization of national advisory committees and the intensification of educational programs, as recommended in the later sections of Part III, and that the goals listed in para. 40 be made priority items for attention in these committees and programs. We would also favor listing, as a third objective, surveys in depth of the practical application of standards adopted in recent years for the elimination of discrimination, with a view to cooperation between governments and the UN, the ILO, UNESCO and other agencies in evaluating progress. We believe this approach is more realistic and will be more likely to produce the desired results. For example, since all Members of the UN have repudiated slavery as a legal institution, in most cases many years ago, elimination of slavery may be regarded as offering little opportunity for action at the national level. The need for additional measures is therefore more likely to be recognized through the findings of a national advisory committee. While the situation with regard to discrimination is quite different, the complete elimination of discrimination on all grounds, or indeed on any ground, calls for examination of attitudes and often changes in laws or customs which cannot be achieved without an on-going program of community education to counter ignorance and self-righteousness. In addition to leadership on the particular objectives discussed above, national advisory committees can provide grassroots guidance on special problems and opportunities within each country. The documentation assembled by the Human Rights Commission in 1962 is indicative of the variety and positive value of such committees. In many countries the National Commission for UNESCO can also provide leadership. While it is useful to establish a particular group as a national advisory committee in the field of human rights, experience in the United States has demonstrated the advantage of cooperation among a number of different committees and groups, both official and non-governmental. In the same way, educational campaigns at the national level would embrace the special interests of each country along with particular emphases in the international program. Many countries, including the United States have regularly observed December 10 as Human Rights Day, with cooperation from the mass media, schools, civic and other organizations. The Human Rights Year should stimulate still more vigorous educational programs. A new history of the Universal Declaration will be needed in connection with Human Rights Year. The plans for this history developed in connection with the Fifteenth Anniversary seem adequate and we have confidence in the Secretary General's capacity to prepare it on his own authority. We see no need for a special editorial board; if the Secretary General has questions regarding earlier human rights documents or other matters in which a particular member state has unique interest, he is free to seek the cooperation of the government concerned.
317. Editorial Note During 1964 human rights issues in the form of racial discrimination and the policy of apartheid began to emerge as issues in multilateral bodies as many African states gained their independence and joined the United Nations. During ICAO's first major session of 1964--the Meteorology and Operations Divisional Meeting--African states reacted negatively to the presence of South Africa and Portugal. The United States expressed its dismay at the encroachment of political issues into technical fora and enlisted neutral nations to help. (Telegram 1018 to Bern and telegram 442 from Bern, both January 15, 1964; Department of State, Central Files, AV 3 ICAO) By July the Organization of African Unity announced a new policy of isolation of states that practiced apartheid, a position that threatened to disrupt the ICAO's upcoming African-Indian Ocean Regional Air Navigation Meeting in late November by excluding South Africa and Portugal. On November 10 the Department told the U.S. Mission to the United Nations that "Department understands ICAO Secretariat and ICAO Council President Binaghi well aware of problem, consider exclusion action illegal and undesirable, and are already taking steps to attempt head off expected African action." The Mission was instructed to solicit the Secretary-General's intervention and to emphasize the "desirability of confining technical meetings to technical problems and leaving political issues to appropriate UN bodies." (Telegram 1135 to USUN, November 10; ibid.) The Mission responded that the Secretary-General was getting "cold feet" on such matters and wished the ICAO "to handle the matter itself." (Telegram 1646 from USUN, November 13; ibid.)
318. Airgram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State/1/ A-678 New York, November 24, 1964. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 14. Confidential. Drafted by J.E. Means, and cleared in draft by Marietta Tree and C. Blau. SUBJECT REF /2/Telegram 1510 from USUN, November 5; ibid., SOC 14. Telegram 1548 from USUN, November 6; ibid. Airgram A-89 to USUN transmitted Document 316. Airgram A-96 to USUN, October 19; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 14. Telegram 1214 to USUN, November 17; ibid., UN 6. In highly charged atmosphere of closed Working Group Human Rights Year Committee, recommendations were made over strong United States opposition that (1) the General Assembly be asked to "convene a United Nations Conference on Human Rights" for various purposes,/3/ (2) the General Assembly decide the composition of the Preparatory Committee and the question of finances. /3/Although the U.S. delegation had been authorized to support a special governmental meeting during 1968 and to call it a "conference," the United States only supported such a meeting if it took place in New York as a special session during the 23d General Assembly. The Department warned the delegation: "You should take all necessary steps to head off Committee decisions which would preclude arrangements along above lines." (Telegram 1214 to USUN, November 18; ibid.) Prior to the meeting, the United States, after hard and long negotiations, convinced members of the Sub-Group dealing with the Conference (Costa Rica and Turkey) that the recommendations, such as above, were completely unacceptable to the United States if United States support for the conference was desired. Volio (Costa Rica) agreed and accepted the idea that the conference must be kept within the confines of the General Assembly, and financial implications, if any, must be kept minimal and within the resources of the advisory services program for human rights should ECOSOC desire to re-allocate funds for the conference. The Resolution, with specifications drafted and accepted by Costa Rica and Turkey and presented to the Working Group, has been pouched to the Department. At the beginning of the meeting, it became apparent that the Committee Chairman, Richardson (Jamaica), disliked the Sub-Group report and the contents of the Resolution. Whereupon, he proceeded to launch a vicious campaign to persuade the weak delegates that the Resolution was, in effect, designed to kill the idea of a conference. In the course of his remarks regarding this point, he called the United Nations Secretary-General "overlord of the Human Rights Commission who doesn't think much of it anyway." He called the Human Rights Commission incompetent, ineffective, and said that it was killing United Nations initiatives in Human Rights, that it was unrepresentative of the United Nations, and that the best way to make sure that any conference on human rights was ruined was to let the Human Rights Commission participate in its organization. Furthermore, he stated that the present members on the Human Rights Commission had no interest in human rights. He refused to permit the delegates to ask questions of the Secretariat, and when questions were asked he refused to permit the Secretariat to answer if the answers might be contrary to the Richardson position. As on previous occasions, he insulted the USSR and refused to permit the USSR, under heavy fire by the United States, to withdraw the suggestion that the General Assembly be asked to decide the composition of any Preparatory Committee for the Conference. This incredible performance overpowered the weaker delegates, who folded completely, including Costa Rica and Turkey. The Mission Officer believes Costa Rican capitulation was due solely to Volio's unfortunate absence from the Committee Room. His alternate Redondo was not adequately briefed on the nature of the situation and did not know that the agreement was to stick to the carefully negotiated text. The Turkish Delegate (Tarlan), young and inexperienced in the United Nations, even said that his government would support the conference after the twenty-third General Assembly ended. The United Kingdom Delegate (Taylor) confessed that he had no idea what the matter was all about. Initially the Philippines supported the United States, but folded when other LDC's did. At USUN initiative today, Costa Rica and Turkey were contacted regarding the Friday fiasco. Redondo's ignorance of the agreed text was confirmed. Tarlan is reconsidering and will discuss the matter. The Philippines is also being contacted. The United States Representative is hopeful that the original text will prevail in the Committee despite Richardson tactics. The United States put forward, in no uncertain terms, its position outlined in Deptel 1214 and stated further its unalterable opposition to such procedures, tactics and recommendations now being accepted by the Working Group. It stated flatly that it could not support any attempt to hold another UNCTAD-style conference. Note: Ambassador Tree told the Mission Officer that Richardson told her the evening of November 19 that he is determined to hold the conference outside the General Assembly, and that the United States would now support the idea, although France and the Bloc would be against this. Richardson told Williams the evening of November 20 that "your boys" giving him hard time and that he (Richardson) wanted a specialized agency for human rights and the conference independent of the General Assembly, as this was the only way to get the SA. Richardson also told Williams that some Big Power had to support the idea, and he hoped the United States would. But since the United States did not, perhaps Lord Caradon (U.K.) would support the idea when he returned. This determination is now evident and Richardson seemingly will settle for nothing less. During a heated exchange between the United States and Richardson over the financial implications, Richardson gave figures of past conference. When the United States inquired of the Secretariat for further information, Richardson refused to permit the Secretariat to answer. Note: Figures quoted by Richardson had been shown to the Mission Officer earlier by Volio who admitted that they represented only what the United Nations paid and omitted the sums contributed by the host governments. Due to the United States' bitter opposition and the unavailability of the text in Russian, the Working Group must meet again to reconsider the Sub-Group report. Richardson is certain to offer bitter opposition to further discussion of the Resolution since it is highly satisfactory to him as now drafted. (Text being pouched.) During the meeting, Costa Rica announced that it would extend an invitation for a regional seminar in connection with the Human Rights Year. The Secretariat (Lawson) announced that the Secretariat is now negotiating with Hungary to host the 1966 seminar for the Protection of Human Rights in Local Administration, and with Poland to host the Seminar 1967 on the Implementation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights./4/ Stevenson /4/On December 20, 1965, the UN General Assembly adopted unanimously Resolution 2081 (XX) and its annex, entitled "International Year for Human Rights: interim programme recommended by the Commission on Human Rights." (UN Doc. A/6014, pp. 44-45) With this resolution, the General Assembly decided to convene an international conference on human rights in 1968. The UN General Assembly had previously designated 1968 as International Year of Human Rights by Resolution 1961 (XVIII) of December 12, 1963 (UN Doc. A/5515). See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1965, p. 160, footnote 11.
319. Telegram From the Embassy in Italy to the Department of State/1/ Rome, November 26, 1964, 7 p.m. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, AV 3 ICAO. Limited Official Use; Immediate. Passed to the White House and FAA. 1457. For Aviation Liaison: Attention Ferguson from Boyle. The possibility of exclusion of South Africa and Portugal from ICAO African meeting remains continuing threat despite conciliatory statement made at opening session by UAR on behalf of African states./2/ African states appear adopting technique of walking out of committees and working groups whenever the subject of discussion is a route, circuit, airport or other aeronautical facility connecting Portuguese territory or South Africa with any other African state or which supports an operation from or to Portuguese territory or South Africa which overflies any other African state. They hope by this to, in effect, black out of the regional plan all routes, circuits, etc. into and out of such areas. Not yet clear whether this technique will be completely effective. IATA may be willing and able in the committees and working groups to fill informational gaps. Additionally, attitude of Portugal and South Africa in these meetings may be of significance. So far it appears South Africa will generally remain silent and not initiate any proposals, but Portugal adopting much more aggressive attitude which could cause more difficulties. There are several possible consequences this action. First, black out may be successful, thus meeting can only produce a regional plan not including South Africa or Portuguese territory which obviously of doubtful value, not what meeting was convened for and, in fact, not responsive to ANC directives. UK urges us go along with this result calling it "limited success." Binaghi also appears to want us to go along stating that while this activity violation of spirit of convention and directives, he does not consider it illegal. Binaghi further says defective plan would be to Council and ANC where it can be dealt with. /2/In telegram 1435 from Rome, November 23, the Embassy reported: "At first plenary session of ICAO African meeting the United Arab Republic read the following statement which represented the views of the African states informal meeting held prior to plenary. `The African states regret the presence of Portugal and South Africa and wish to place on record that they will not participate in any discussions initiated by these countries.'" (Ibid.) Another possible outcome of walkout technique is that necessary information may be supplied by others such as IATA, South Africa and Portugal during absence of African delegates, and committees and working groups complete plan using this information. Since in all cases African delegates reserving decisions taken during absence, the reports of committees will then be subject to revision when referred to higher levels of conference or final plenary. Since African states have clear majority in these meetings, the plan will almost certainly be revised to again black out data for South Africa and Portuguese territory. However, in this situation, since basic plan had been produced, Council or ANC possibly could disregard action of final plenary and publish unexpurgated regional plan. Another possible alternative is that a committee or working group, being unable to proceed because of walkout, will refer matter to sub-committee one, highest level short of plenary, where basic issue of expulsion may again erupt. Binaghi urging that this not occur since in his view once it is necessary to take a position in public, all African states will vote for expulsion. Binaghi states that he has been able to keep meeting under control only through device of arranging private African states only meetings at which their differences can be aired in private and in which moderates can be most effective. It appears first test of last mentioned alternative may occur Friday. Working group referring to subcommittee one a table of aircraft operations and route map for region which singles out for separate decision 1) routes into and out of Portuguese territory and South Africa from other African states, 2) routes to and from such areas which overfly African states and 3) routes into and out of Israel which overfly Arab states. Binaghi does not believe expulsion issue will arise at this first test. US del proposes low key opposition to deletion of such routes on grounds that it contrary to directives of ANC, that their deletion would result in not planning for significant area of region, and that conference is not performing its technical function./3/ /3/The Department agreed with this approach, and cautioned the delegation to "avoid any situation that would produce walkout." (Telegram 1337 to Rome, November 27; ibid.) Further general instructions in view foregoing developments desired. Reinhardt
320. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Portugal/1/ Washington, December 2, 1964, 1:46 p.m. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, AV 3 ICAO. Confidential. Drafted by R. Funseth (EUR) and L. Williams (EUR); cleared by Joan S. Gravatt (AL), Elizabeth Ann Brown (UNP), and Wagner (AFI); and approved by D. McKillop (WE). Also sent to Rome and Montreal and repeated to Pretoria and USUN. 321. Ref: ICAO African Regional Conference. Counselor Portuguese Embassy urgently called Dept November 29 on instructions GOP seeking strong and active USG support Portugal at ICAO regional conference Rome. Said conference action creates air safety hazard./2/ /2/On November 27 the delegate from Tunisia introduced a resolution excluding both South Africa and Portugal: "Delegations of independent states of Africa request adjournment, sine die, of discussion on route segments between Portugal, African Portuguese territories, and South Africa, and in meantime request Secretariat to prepare a new table of aircraft operations on this basis." (Telegram 1468 from Rome, November 27; ibid.) Discussion of the resolution was postponed until November 30 by which time an apparent compromise kept the conference in session. Citing previous statements, the Tunisian delegation withdrew the motion and asked the Secretariat to "indicate clearly at each pertinent point in report that they disassociate themselves from recommendation in question," thereby allowing discussion to proceed. (Telegram 1489 from Rome, November 30; ibid.) He was informed of USG actions against adoption of resolution and our assessment that while action unfortunate, info might still be inserted into regional plan by Air Navigation Commission and Council./3/ Also informed argumentation US delegation instructed use (Deptel 1337)./4/ /2/On November 27 the delegate from Tunisia introduced a resolution excluding both South Africa and Portugal: "Delegations of independent states of Africa request adjournment, sine die, of discussion on route segments between Portugal, African Portuguese territories, and South Africa, and in meantime request Secretariat to prepare a new table of aircraft operations on this basis." (Telegram 1468 from Rome, November 27; ibid.) Discussion of the resolution was postponed until November 30 by which time an apparent compromise kept the conference in session. Citing previous statements, the Tunisian delegation withdrew the motion and asked the Secretariat to "indicate clearly at each pertinent point in report that they disassociate themselves from recommendation in question," thereby allowing discussion to proceed. (Telegram 1489 from Rome, November 30; ibid.) Harriman
321. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission to the United Nations/1/ Washington, December 9, 1964, 7:31 p.m. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 14. Limited Official Use; Priority. Drafted by R. Nason (IO/OES), cleared by William J. Stibravy (OES), and approved by J. Sisco (IO). 1451. Subject: Proposed Human Rights Conference in 1968. Ref: urtel 2054;/2/ Deptel 1214./3/ For Williams. /2/Dated December 8. (Ibid.) /3/Dated November 18. (Ibid.) Caradon position deeply disturbing./4/ It appears to Dept. drift is toward big human rights conference in 1968 with considerable risk irresponsible use conference platform for race and other propaganda issues. Quite aside from advantage in costs, which important in view many other demands on UN budget, we believe meeting along lines Deptel 1214 would be more likely provide responsible and practical discussions of how to advance human rights across the board in line Charter objectives. Decision by International Year Committee in favor conference-type meeting held during period GA and under its aegis would be important step forward; in light US-UK-Turkey-Costa Rica leadership in subcommittee discussion, UK withdrawal from GA framework position will greatly enhance prospects conference outside GA. /4/U.S. diplomats learned from their British counterparts that the British delegation was "under firm instructions not to alienate Amb. Richardson (Jamaica), who is chief proponent of conf., though UK Govt. does not at present favor conf." Richardson had made a strong démarche to Lord Caradon and, as a result, "UK 'running out' on US in regard to conf." The State Department was disturbed since USUN had reported that there were indications that Richardson had been prepared to accept the U.S. proposal for a conference during the General Assembly. (Telegram 2054 from USUN, December 8; ibid.) Believe situation justifies your talking personally with Caradon to obtain his thinking and if necessary assure UK position remains flexible until further exchange views can be arranged./5/ We believe you should try out in particular variant described in last para of Deptel 1214. /5/In a meeting on December 14, "Speaking for himself, Caradon expressed enthusiastic support for Amb. Richardson's (Jamaica) proposal, and indicated it difficult persuade him otherwise. He said it important UN be seen 'doing more' in field of HR. . . . He thought positive action in HR field would help image of UN in UK," USUN reported. Like Richardson, Lord Caradon believed that a conference concurrent with the General Assembly session would not get enough attention. He told the Americans that he was going to London "to seek instructions in favor of independent conf, including commitment on financing." (Telegram 2154 from USUN, December 14; ibid.) Rusk
322. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission to the United Nations/1/ Washington, January 20, 1965, 12:05 p.m. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 14. Confidential. Drafted by Brown (IO/UNP), cleared by Buffum (UNP) and Nason (OES), and approved by J. Sisco. Also sent to London. 1818. 1968 Conference on Human Rights. Ref: CA 6715;/2/ USUN 2715./3/ /2/Dated January 4. (Ibid.) /3/Dated January 18. (Ibid.) In discussions with DepAsstSec Sisco Jan 15 British Minister of State Thomson referred to Caradon's strong advocacy of special conference proposed by Jamaica./4/ There was strong resistance to special conference in Foreign Office on basis of costs and likelihood it would become involved in black-white problems such as West Indians in UK and negroes in US rather than broader concepts of need for respect for fundamental human rights./5/ /4/In late December the Embassy in London reported that Caradon was under instructions from the Foreign Office to oppose the conference, but that the Foreign Office was not certain that he would do so. The Embassy commented: "This probably not last time Foreign Office will have problems as result of appointment UN representative someone with prestige, experience and stubbornness of Lord Caradon. This particularly true during shakedown period Labor Government and preoccupation FonSec on by-election hustings." (Telegram 3012 from London, December 31; ibid.) /5/USUN reported that, "Following US presentation Grondin [Canada] expressed view Afro-Asians might want 'whites' to attend seminars in order 'to get at us.' We agreed regional seminars might be abused politically but thought this could be controlled." (Telegram 2659 from USUN, January 14; ibid.) Sisco described US suggestion of GA Committee of Whole as set forth CA 6715. We were also continuing to seek some way to get UN involved in systematic world-wide program of human rights which would permit us to get away from straight racial problems. Thompson commented UK had been giving further consideration to idea of UN Commissioner for Human Rights. Sisco said we had also been studying this possibility. Rusk
323. Memorandum of Conversation/1/ Washington, January 21, 1965. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 14. Unclassified. Drafted by Nason and Widenor. SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS Mr. Gardner invited participants to comment on the proposal, (1) in relation to the U.S. domestic situation and (2) in relation to our foreign policy. On the domestic side, Burke Marshall and others raised the possibility that U.S. groups agitating in the race relations field would take advantage of a UN Commissioner on Human Rights to seek further publicity. Ambassador Williams pointed out that such U.S. groups are already appealing directly to foreign delegations in New York, so that the establishment of a Human Rights Commissioner in the United Nations would not create a new situation. On the contrary, a balanced and objective human rights reporting system would be helpful and was urgently needed to offset the ignorance and disbelief in New York with respect to U.S. progress in eliminating race discrimination--the U.S. was already exposed and the situation could not be worse. Some thought the reports of a Human Rights Commissioner might naturally tend to focus on the "open" societies, such as the U.S., whose problems are a matter of public record and neglect the "closed" societies, such as the U.S.S.R., in which not even the existence of human rights problems is publicly acknowledged. In answer it was pointed out that there are many and various independent sources of information on the U.S.S.R. that the Commissioner could draw upon. Moreover, the Commissioner's report would be studied in the Human Rights Commission and in the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities, as well as in ECOSOC, thereby giving both experts and government representatives an opportunity to criticize and rebut it. Throughout the discussion great emphasis was placed on drawing the terms of reference so as to definitively limit the powers of the Commissioner. Everyone agreed the Commissioner should function only as a reporter and not be allowed to become an investigator. On the foreign policy side, questions were raised as to the U.S. position in case a Commissioner report exposed serious human rights violations or malpractice in countries, such as the GRC, ROK and RVN, which are known to be receiving major support from the U.S. No final agreement was reached. Mr. Gardner indicated that the original memo would be revised in the light of the discussion and of proposals already in circulation at the United Nations./2/ /2/On December 13, 1965, the U.S. Representatives in Committee III of the UN General Assembly made a statement supporting the proposal to create the post of UN High Commissioner, and on December 16 the General Assembly adopted a resolution that referred the proposal to the Commission on Human Rights. See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1965, p. 156. On March 30, 1966, the Commission decided to establish a working group of nine states (including the United States) to study the proposal for a High Commissioner for Human Rights and report the results to the Commission at its 23d session in 1967; see ibid., 1966, pp. 93-94. Action was postponed through 1971; an alternative resolution was adopted in 1973.
324. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Department of State/1/ London, February 18, 1965, 4 p.m. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 14. Confidential. Repeated to USUN. 3999. Embtel 3370 rptd USUN 244./2/ Human Rights Conference. Pridham (head UN Social and Econ Dept FonOff) told EmbOff yesterday Caradon had been given permission lobby and vote on HR Conference as he saw fit. This despite continued misgivings MinState Thomson and others FonOff who still adhere personally to position set forth reftel./3/ Pridham indicated change in Caradon instructions essentially for "Commonwealth reasons," although admitted Jamaicans had put no pressure on FonOff in London. He also hinted at bureaucratic problem inducing high powered ministerial representative to adhere to party line in this case where he holds strong contrary views. Pridham admitted new Caradon instructions might well result in over-balancing opinion in wrong direction on HR Conference which he assumes will come to comite vote end this month. /2/Dated January 20. (Ibid.) /3/See Document 322. Bruce
325. Telegram From the Embassy in Ethiopia to the Department of State/1/ Addis Ababa, April 1, 1965, 3 p.m. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, AV 3 ICAO. Confidential. Repeated to London, Beirut, Paris, Asmara, and USUN. 1394. Communist Activities re ICAO. Deptel 1050./2/ /2/Dated March 25. (Ibid.) Local soundings have turned up no information concerning alleged Communist plan to expel South Africa and Portugal from ICAO and to take over that organization./3/ /3/Telegram 1050 to Addis Ababa reported that the Department had learned from foreign sources of a "well-organized plan underway by Communist countries, working with Arab League and sympathetic African countries, to gain control ICAO at Assembly in Montreal next June. Action would include move at beginning first plenary session oust South Africa and Portugal with walkout planned." It was also rumored that "Communist, Arab, or partisan African" candidates would be nominated for each post. (Ibid.) We understand that, as usual, resolution was passed at Nairobi ministerial/4/ condemning apartheid and Portuguese Colonialism. However, current indications are that it did not include concerted plan for ousting SA and Portugal from ICAO. /4/Reference is to a meeting in February-March of the Foreign Ministers of members of the Organization of African Unity. At same time, according to our sources, there is considerable sentiment among African policy makers to continue policy of isolating SA and Portugal in international bodies, as sanctioned by heads of state at Cairo, July, 1964 in AHG/res. (I) conveyed our A-70./5/ Therefore "spontaneous" African participation in moves to expel SA and Portugal from the ICAO should be anticipated, and support from whatever quarter presumably will be welcome./6/ /5/For extracts of the resolution pertaining to South Africa adopted by the OAU in Cairo on July 21, 1964, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1964, pp. 807-808. /6/Telegram 4800 from London, April 2, reported that the British confirmed that they had received a report from Walter Binaghi that mentioned only South Africa. The British had calculated that the "Communist-Arab-African bloc" could command close to 50 percent of the vote. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, AV 3 ICAO) Air Transport advisor to ECA (protect source), addressing himself to African, not African cum Communist, role, has heard of no such takeover plans. Feels however that Africans, who have five of 27 seats on ICAO governing council would be ill-advised to stage walkout on SA/Portugal issue. Added he has confidence in Council Chairman Benagi of Argentina whom he believes could avoid an African takeover. Vance [Continue with the next documents]
|
