When the General Committee's report recommending inclusion of the item came before the plenary session on September 17, the South African representative renewed his plea. He argued that South Africa's laws and policies did not violate the charter provisions in question since neither the charter nor any other internationally binding instrument contains any definition of fundamental human rights. He said further that discussion in the United Nations "often constitutes what is perhaps one of the most insidious and effective forms of intervention of which this Organization is capable." However, the item was placed on the agenda by 46 votes (United States) to 7, with 7 abstentions.

The ensuing discussion, which began in the Ad Hoc Political Committee on November 20, tended to focus almost exclusively on the competence issue, with very little attention being given to the Commission's report or to detailed consideration of the racial situation in South Africa.

The South African representative sought a decision on the competence issue, as he put it, in the hope of persuading the Committee to decide once and for all that the rights of members under the charter should be inviolate. The Commission's report, he insisted, was an unjustifiable intervention in the domestic affairs of a member. No threat to international peace existed, nor was his Government's domestic legislation likely to impair friendly relations among nations. At the conclusion of his remarks the South African representative submitted a draft resolution under which the Committee would note that the matters to which the item related, "such as the policies and legislation of a member in regard to land tenure, conditions of employment in public services, regulation of transport, suppression of communism, combat service in the armed forces, nationality, the franchise, movement of population, residence, immigration, the work and practice of the professions, social security, education, public health, criminal law, taxation, housing, regulation of the liquor traffic, regulation of labor and wages, marriage, food subsidies, local government, pensions, workmen's compensation, are among matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a Member State." The Committee would also note "that by Article 2 (7) of the Charter nothing contained in the Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State"; and would decide that it "has no competence to intervene in the matters listed above to which the said item relates."

The Indian representative submitted a draft resolution, noting the Commission's conclusions and providing for it to continue its study,

first, "with reference to the various implications of the situation on the populations affected," and, second, "in relation to the provisions of the Charter and in particular to Article 14." Further, this draft resolution, which was cosponsored by Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burma, Egypt, Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, gave the Commission an additional function by requesting it "to suggest measures which would help to alleviate the situation and promote a peaceful settlement." It also invited South Africa to cooperate fully with the Commission and requested the latter to report to the ninth session of the Assembly.

Subsequently, the Chilean representative introduced an amendment to add an operative paragraph reaffirming certain past Assembly resolutions declaring the importance of ending all forms of discrimination and affirming that genuine and lasting peace depends upon respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.

Without exception all participants in the substantive debate recorded their opposition to any policy of racial discrimination. While it was generally agreed that the United Nations could address general recommendations on human rights to all members, several delegations supported the South African position on competence in this case. Other members pointed out that the Committee was not discussing South Africa's legislation on the enumerated topics but rather the broad question of race conflict resulting from the apartheid policy. In their view the United Nations was clearly entitled to inquire into alleged violations of human rights and to make appropriate recommendations.

Observing that this agenda item "brings before the United Nations the entire program of a member state's policy and legislation concerning the status and treatment of its nationals and other persons within its jurisdiction, on the basis of their racial origins," Mrs. Frances P. Bolton, the United States representative, told the Committee her Government was "keenly aware of the serious problems in which the Organization may become involved, in dealing with matters of this character, if it does not constantly keep in mind the domestic jurisdiction provision of the Charter." The United Nations, she said, faced a most serious question in trying to see how it can best play the part laid down for it in the charter with respect to the advancement of human rights everywhere. The charter's human rights provisions represented an important innovation in international political life, and actions within their framework should be taken carefully in order not to blight the prospects of steady and wholesome growth. In the view of the United States, "when the United Nations considers critical human rights problems within a particular country, that con

sideration should be related to developments throughout the world in the field of human rights and should be directed toward the evolution of international standards having general application." The second resolution adopted under this agenda item in 1952 was, Mrs. Bolton said, a proper course of action in this regard. This resolution was in effect a general declaration of human rights objectives, indicating the proper direction for the racial policies of all members.

Recalling the United States original doubts respecting the usefulness and wisdom of establishing the Commission, Mrs. Bolton regretted that "the Commission has not shed new light on the problem and that its conclusions do not contain any fruitful new suggestions." Citing the American tradition and experience, she affirmed that "cooperation between peoples, not segregation and separation, slow and difficult as the process may be, is the way to salvation."

On December 5 the Committee voted on the proposals before it. Mrs. Bolton, announcing a negative vote on the South African motion, pointed out that specific South African legislation was not being considered but rather the overall racial situation in light of the charter's human rights provisions. She stated further that the United States could not accept the South African interpretation of intervention as including discussion. A number of other members explained that their negative votes should not be interpreted as meaning that the matters listed in the South African proposal were not domestic but rather that they were not under consideration. The South African proposal was rejected on a roll-call vote, 42 votes to 7, with 7 abstentions.

The United States abstained on all provisions of the 17-power resolution except that it voted against the provision requesting the Commission "to continue its study of the development of the racial situation in the Union of South Africa with reference to the various implications of the situation for the populations affected." The draft resolution as a whole, including the Chilean amendment, was adopted by a vote of 37 to 10, with 9 abstentions. In explaining her abstention, Mrs. Bolton indicated serious doubts about the wisdom of continuing the Commission, particularly since there was no real prospect that United Nations advice would be accepted in view of the Union's position, but said she abstained rather than vote in the negative because of the question of principle involved and her Government's opposition to racial discrimination.

In plenary session on December 8 the South African representative introduced a new competence resolution under which the Assembly, having regard to article 2 (7) of the charter, would decide that it had no competence to adopt the draft resolution recommended by the Committee. This motion was rejected by a vote of 42 to 8, with 10 abstentions (United States).

Thereafter, the Committee-recommended resolution, with a minor amendment of a procedural nature, was approved by a vote of 38 to 11 (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the United Kingdom), with 11 abstentions (Argentina, China, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Norway, Panama, Peru, Sweden, Turkey, the United States, and Venezuela).

Trieste

The U.S.S.R. on October 12, 1953, raised the Trieste question in the Security Council by asking for a discussion of the old agenda item on the "appointment of a governor for the Free Territory of Trieste," last considered by the Council in 1949. This Soviet move came 4 days after the United States and the United Kingdom on October 8 announced their desire to withdraw their troops and terminate Allied Military Government in Trieste, relinquishing administration of their zone to Italy.

The Italian peace treaty, in connection with its provision for the establishment of the Free Territory of Trieste, had requested the Security Council to assume certain responsibilities. The Council had accepted these responsibilities, including the appointment of a governor. The treaty had also provided for the continuation of American-British administration of Zone A (the city and port of Trieste and a small rural area) and of Yugoslav administration of Zone B (a predominantly rural area south of the city) pending the assumption of office by a governor for the Free Territory. By 1949, however, it had become clear that agreement between the Western Powers and the U.S.S.R. in the Security Council on a suitable governor could not be expected.

While continuing their administration of Zone A and submitting periodic reports thereon to the Security Council, the United States and the United Kingdom have, since Yugoslavia's break with Moscow in the summer of 1948, sought to encourage Italy and Yugoslavia to negotiate directly a territorial settlement for the Trieste area that would be mutually acceptable. Such an agreement would, of course, go far to remove the longstanding tension in the relations between these two countries and thus would be in the general interest.

In view of the predominantly Italian character of Zone A, the United States and the United Kingdom in March 1952, after consultation with Italy, liberalized the military administration in their zone of the Trieste area in order to permit the introduction of certain Italian officials who would be under the authority of the Allied Zone Commander. By a memorandum of understanding among the gov

ernments concerned, note was taken of the "intimate connections that exist between the economy of the zone and the Italian economy as a whole and the essential contribution that is being made to the wellbeing of the zone by the Italian Government."

Despite renewed efforts by the United States and the United Kingdom to encourage direct settlement between Italy and Yugoslavia, tension between the two countries over this problem continued, rendering unattainable the stabilization of conditions in Southern Europe necessary for the maintenance of a strong, coordinated defensive posture among the independent nations of that area. In making their announcement on October 8, the United States and the United Kingdom expressed their concern over the recent deterioration in ItaloYugoslav relations. They pointed out that under the peace treaty their responsibilities for the administration of Zone A were to be purely temporary and that "it was never envisaged that they should become permanent." They expressed the belief that the step they intended would contribute to stabilization of the situation and lead to a "final peaceful solution."

Yugoslavia expressed vigorous objection to the implementation of this decision. Subsequently, however, it indicated willingness to enter into discussions of possible bases for settlement, and since the latter part of 1953 the United States and the United Kingdom, in association with France, have been engaged in exploratory discussion and consultation with Italy and Yugoslavia on ways and means of working toward peaceful and harmonious settlement of this distressing problem.

The U. S. S. R. seized upon the situation in an attempt to revive the now obsolete idea of naming a governor, renewed old propaganda charges against the Western Powers, and sought to capitalize on possibilities of a sharp division between the West and Yugoslavia. However, after several short-term postponements of consideration of the refurbished Soviet proposal to name a governor, the Council adopted on December 14, 1953, a United States motion to postpone discussion "pending the outcome of the current efforts to find a solution." The motion was passed by a vote of 9 to 1 (U. S. S. R.), with 1 abstention.

ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS

On April 10, 1953, Dag Hammarskjold of Sweden took his oath of office before the General Assembly as Secretary-General of the United Nations. The organization acquired no new members during 1953

298129-54- -7