Assembly 298.

1. Joint meeting of first and sixth Committees voted this
afternoon regarding Indians in South Africa. Various proposals had
been reduced to-
(a) Joint proposal of United Kingdom, United States, Sweden and
South Africa (see our Assembly 279 [1]).

(b) French-Mexican motion (see our Assembly 272 [2]).

(c) A new Polish amendment reducing United Kingdom proposal to
almost meaningless terms.

(d) Chinese and Colombian proposal to refer all proposals to a
subcommittee for study with a view to reaching settlement.

2. India withdrew its independent proposal and associated itself
with French-Mexican proposals.

3. During tangled debate manipulations of Manuilsky as Chairman
coupled with vacillation of China gained priority for French-
Mexican proposal. We argued that Chinese-Colombian proposal should
be submitted first as it would obviously become meaningless if
fate of other proposals were decided. United Kingdom and others
also raised objections to procedure adopted.

4. When it became obvious that vote was to be taken we made brief
declaration to the effect that none of the resolutions was wholly
acceptable to us and our vote should be understood as attempt to
choose the least objectionable. We regretted that Committee had
not made greater effort to investigate and study question before
pressing to final vote.

5. Belgium made similar declaration and several other delegations,
including United States, Netherlands, Luxemburg and Canada
indicated their embarrassment in circumstances in which vote was
being taken.

6. Vote on French-Mexican proposal resulted in its adoption by 24
votes to 19 with 6 abstentions and 5 absent. The majority was
comprised of India, the Soviet Group, several Latin American
Republics, the Arab States, Iran, China and the Philippines. We
voted against.

7. This vote was regarded as having closed the Committee's
consideration of the subject but, as anticipated, the result makes
it almost certain that it will be impossible to obtain two-thirds
majority for any decision in the Plenary Sessions. We would
appreciate your careful consideration of the terms of the various
resolutions contained in our Assembly 272 and 279 and any further
instructions regarding our attitude in Plenary Sessions,
particularly on domestic jurisdiction issue.