Treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa.

1. The General Assembly in plenary meeting on Saturday 14th May, adopted a resolution, the text of which is contained in my immediately following teletype,t by roll call vote of 47 in favour (including Canada), one against (South Africa), and 10 abstentions. The following countries abstained: Greece, Paraguay, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, Argentina, Byelo-Russia, Czechoslovakia. Ethiopia was absent.

2. Mr. Louw of South Africa objected to the inclusion of any reference to the Declaration of Human Rights in the resolution which was adopted and asked that the words "and the Declaration of Human Rights" be put to a vote separately from the rest of the operative paragraph of the resolution. The President (Evan) ruled that these words were essentially an integral part of the paragraph as a whole and could not be voted upon separately. In the circumstances South Africa voted against the resolution and the United Kingdom abstained. The other members of the Commonwealth voted for the resolution. The Soviet bloc abstained from voting on the resolution on the grounds that is was "too weak".

3. The representative of India in a most conciliatory statement declared that he would not press for a vote on the resolution which India had submitted and which had been adopted by the First Committee by a vote of 21 in favour, 17 against and 12 abstentions. The other resolution having been adopted the General Assembly at the suggestion of the President consented to the withdrawal of the Indian resolution. The contingency contemplated in your message No. 476 of 15th May therefore did not arise. The procedure in this respect was somewhat confused as the rules of procedure provide for the withdrawal of a motion by the proposer if it is not amended before it is put to the vote. In this case the resolution had been adopted by a committee. However, no objection was raised to adopting the coursesuggested by the Indian delegation, particularly as it was evident that this proposal would not obtain the necessary two-thirds majority.

4. The Indian position in the debate in the General Assembly was marked by a conciliatory attitude which was in contrast to their attitude in Committee 1 and also with the attitude of South Africa both in Committee 1 and continued into the General Assembly. Mr. Loom in a long statement repeated substantially the arguments which he had put forward in the First Committee and gave no indication that South Africa would be willing to enter into direct negotiations upon the basis of the text of the resolution ultimately adopted by the General Assembly. In what appeared to be a contradiction, on the one hand he maintained that the discussion as well as any decision by the General Assembly on the Indian complaint was outside the competence of the Assembly, and on the other hand, he suggested that the Assembly might best take a decision merely calling upon the two parties to enter into discussions at a round table Conference without specifying any basis for these discussions whatever.