[ 1965 ] part 1 sec 3 chapter 2 the situation with regard...

DECLARATION ON INDEPENDENCE FOR COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES 547

Security Council to examine the situation in theTerritory as soon as possible.

REPORT OF SPECIAL

COMMITTEE OF 24

Various recommendations and conclusions onthe situation in the Trust Territory were con-

tained in the 1964 and 1965 reports of theGeneral Assembly's 24-member Special Com-mittee on the Situation with regard to theImplementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countriesand Peoples.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL——32ND SESSION

Plenary Meetings 1245-1253, 1256, 1257, 1261-1263,1267, 1270.

Seventeenth Annual Report to United Nations onAdministration of Trust Territory of Pacific Islands,1 July 1963 to 30 June 1964. Transmitted by UnitedStates of America to United Nations Pursuant toArticle 88 of Charter of United Nations. Departmentof State Publication 7811. International Organiza-tion and Conference Series 59. United States Gov-ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

T/1628. Report of United Nations Visiting Mission toTrust Territory of Pacific Islands, 1964 (togetherwith relevant resolution of Trusteeship Council).

T/1633 (S/6295). Note by Secretary-General trans-mitting report of United States on Trust Territoryof Pacific Islands for period 1 July 1963-30 June1964.

T/1638. Observations of World Health Organization.T/L.1089 and Add.l. Conditions in Territory. Secre-

tariat working paper.T/L.1092. USSR: draft resolution, rejected by Coun-

cil on 22 June 1965, meeting 1261, by roll-callvote of 1 to 5, with 2 abstentions, as follows: Infavour, USSR; Against, Australia, France, NewZealand, United Kingdom, United States; Abstain-

ing, China, Liberia.T/L.1096. Report of Drafting Committee.T/L.1097 and Rev.l. USSR: amendments to report

of Drafting Committee, T/L.1096.T/L.1100. Draft report of Trusteeship Council to

Security Council on Trust Territory of PacificIslands, as amended, adopted by Council on 28June 1965, meeting 1267, by 6 votes to 0, with 2abstentions.

S/6490. Report of Trusteeship Council to SecurityCouncil on Trust Territory of Pacific Islandscovering period from 30 June 1964 to 30 June 1965.

OTHER DOCUMENTSA/5800/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee on Imple-

mentation of Declaration on Granting of Independ-ence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (coveringits work in 1964), Chapter XVIII.

A/6000/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee on Imple-mentation of Declaration on Granting of Independ-ence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (coveringits work in 1965), Chapter XVII.

A/6002. Report of Security Council to General As-sembly, 20th session, Chapter 15.

A/6004. Report of Trusteeship Council to GeneralAssembly, 20th session, Part I: Chapters I-III,V, VI.

CHAPTER II

THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OFTHE DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE

TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES

During 1965,, the General Assembly's 24-member Special Committee on the Situationwith regard to the Implementation of the De-claration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples1 continued todischarge its mandate as set forth by theAssembly on 10 December 1963.2

The Special Committee held 74 plenarymeetings between 6 April and 10 November

1965 (including 35 in Africa), during the courseof which it examined and made recommenda-tions on the implementation of the Declarationwith respect to 15 territories.

See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50, text of resolution1514(XV).

See Y.U.N., 1963, pp. 446-47, text of reso-lution 1956(XVIII); pp. 441-42, text of resolution1970(XVIII); and also pp. 466-67, text of resolu-tion 1899(XVIII).

1

2

548 TRUST AND NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES

In the pages that follow, an account isgiven of the Special Committee's work in gen-eral during 1965. Following that, details aregiven of its consideration of, and recommenda-tions on, individual territories.

Details of the action taken in 1965 by the

General Assembly, the Special Committee ofTwenty-four and other bodies on matters con-cerning Southern Rhodesia, South Vest Africaand territories under Portuguese Administrationwill be found elsewhere in this volume of theYearbook (see pp. 117-34, 594-605 and 605-16).

General AspectsSYSTEM OF EXAMINATION

During 1965, the General Assembly's 24-member Special Committee on the Situationwith regard to the Implementation of theDeclaration on the Granting of Independenceto Colonial Countries and Peoples continuedto use the methods of work developed in preced-ing years and endorsed by the General Assembly.

Under this procedure, it examined the imple-mentation of the Declaration in individual terri-tories, the order of priority being decided onthe basis of recommendations made by its Work-ing Group (composed of the officers of theCommittee and four other members).

To assist in its examination of conditions ineach territory, the Special Committee normallyhas before it an information paper preparedby the Secretariat describing recent politicaland constitutional developments as well as cur-rent economic, social and educational conditions.This information is derived from publishedsources and, in relevant cases, from the informa-tion transmitted by administering powers underArticle 73e of the United Nations Charter.(For text of Article 73e, see APPENDIX II.)

In addition, the Special Committee requeststhe administering powers to submit informationon political and constitutional developments inthe territories they administer. The Committeehears statements from the administering powers,inviting those which are not members of theCommittee to participate in its examination ofthe territories they administer. Petitions arecirculated and the Special Committee maydecide to hear petitioners at its meetings.(Reservations concerning these proceedings havebeen expressed by Australia, the United King-dom and the United States.) At the conclusionof its examination of the situation in the parti-cular territory concerned, the Special Committeeadopts its recommendations in the form of a

consensus formulated by its Chairman or bymeans of a resolution which is adopted by vote.The Special Committee is empowered by theGeneral Assembly to send out visiting groupsto territories in co-operation with administeringpowers. (This procedure has also been thesubject of reservations expressed in the SpecialCommittee by Australia, the United Kingdomand the United States.) The Committee estab-lishes sub-committees whenever it considersthem necessary.

Each year, the Special Committee adopts areport to the General Assembly which includesseparate chapters on the situation in each terri-tory or group of territories which it has con-sidered. It is on the basis of this report thatthe Assembly considers the implementation ofthe Declaration in general and with respectto individual territories.

SCOPE OF THE SPECIALCOMMITTEE'S WORK IN 1965

In 1965, the Special Committee consideredthe situation in the following territories: South-ern Rhodesia, Aden, the territories underPortuguese administration, South West Africa,Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland, theCook Islands and British Guiana. It also hearda petitioner concerning the Bahamas, but itdid not consider conditions in that: territory.Because of lack of time, the Special Committeewas not able to consider the situation in theother territories on its preliminary list. However,in its 1965 report, the Special Committeeincluded additional information on these terri-tories which was to be regarded as supplement-ary to that contained in the relevant chaptersof its 1964 report.

On 27 May 1965, the Special Committee,upon the request of Somalia, decided to includeFrench Somaliland in its list of territories to


which the Declaration applied. The SpecialCommittee was not able to complete this listas requested by the Assembly in 1965 and wasto consider the question further during 1966.

It will be recalled that, in 1963, the GeneralAssembly entrusted the Special Committee withthe question of examining information on non-self-governing territories transmitted underArticle 73e of the Charter.3 On 13 September1965, the Special Committee took note of thereport of the Secretary-General on this question.As in previous years, the Secretariat continuedto take this information into account, in relevantcases, in preparing the working papers onindividual territories which the Special Com-mittee, after approving, incorporated in itsreport to the General Assembly.

The Special Committee continued its Sub-Committee on Petitions which, in 1965, con-sidered a total of 197 communications, includ-ing 36 requests for hearings. As a result, thefollowing 50 petitioners appeared before theSpecial Committee, on the recommendation ofthe Sub-Committee.

AdenQahtan Shaabi and Saif Dhalee, National Front

for the Liberation of the Occupied South ofYemen.

BahamasL. O. Pindling, Leader of the Opposition and of

the Progressive Liberal Party (accompanied byC. W. Whitfield, C. A. Bain, M. B. Butler,A. D. Hanna, A. A. Foulkes Mrs. D. Johnson,

H. W. Brown)Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland

I. B. Tabata, All-African Convention (AAC) andUnity Movement of South Africa

A. B. Ngcobo and Z. B. Molete, Pan-AfricanistCongress of South Africa (PAC)

BasutolandBishop Mpeta and L. A. Matooane, Basutoland

Congress Party (BCP)Swaziland

J. J. Nquku, Swaziland Progressive Party (SPP)British Guiana

Felix A. Cummings, People's Progressive Party(PPP)

Territories under Portuguese AdministrationAngola

Lufuino M. Muliata and S. K. Njolomba onbehalf of the Angolan refugees in Zambia

Adao Jose Domingos Kapilango, Uniao dasPopulagoes de Angola (UFA)

Anibal de Melo, Movimento Popular de Liber-tagao de Angola (MPLA)

Marcos Kassanga, Conseil du Peuple Angolais(CPA)

MozambiqueZarica J. Sakupwanya [Comite Preparatorio do

Congresso Constitucional, do~] Comite Revo-lucionario de Mozambique (COREMO)

Eduardo C. Mondlane, Lazaro Kavandame,Mateus Muthemba, Uria Simango, Frente deLibertaqao de Mozambique (FRELIMO)

Portuguese GuineaAmilcar Cabral, Partido Africano da Indepen-

dencia da Guine e Caba Verde (PAIGC)South West Africa

Sam Nujoma, Albert Muyongo, Jacob Kuhangua,Andreas Shipanga, Emil Appolus, South WestAfrica People's Organization (SWAPO)

Vuzumuzi Make, Elias Ntloedibe (accompanied byL. Masimini), Pan-Africanist Congress of SouthAfrica (PAC)

Gottfriedt Jario, Godfrey Gaoseb, South WestAfrica National Union (SWANU)

J. D. Nyaose (accompanied by Moses Smith),Federation of Free African Trade Unions ofSouth Africa (FOFATUSA)

Alfred Ngokong (accompanied by James Hadebeand Maindu Msimang), African National Con-gress of South Africa (ANC)

Mburumba Kerina, National Unity DemocraticOrganization (NUDO)

Southern RhodesiaNathan Shamuyarira and James MutambirwaG. B. Nyandoro, Zimbabwe African Peoples'

Union (ZAPU)Noel G. Mukono and J. W. Matuure, Zimbabwe

African National Union (ZANU)Francis Nehwati, Zimbabwe African Congress of

Trade Unions (ZACU) or (ZACTU)

The Special Committee was again assistedin its work by its Sub-Committee on SouthernRhodesia, its Sub-Committee on Aden and itsSub-Committee of Good Offices on BritishGuiana. In taking action on the reports ofthese Sub-Committees, the Special Committeeauthorized each to continue its work and reportto the Special Committee as necessary.

As requested by the General Assembly on18 February 1965, the United Nations Rep-resentative for the Supervision of Elections inthe Cook Islands reported to the Special Com-mittee, as well as the Assembly, and on 30August 1965, the Special Committee adopteda resolution taking note of his report. (Fordetails, see pp. 570-74.)

See Y.U.N., 1963, pp. 441-42, resolution 1970(XVIII).

3


The Special Committee also considered areport by the Secretary-General on the ways andmeans of ensuring the economic independenceof Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland,submitted in compliance with a request madeby the Special Committee on 2 November 1964,and adopted a resolution thereon on 20 Sept-ember 1965. (For details of resolution, seebelow, pp. 566-67.)

The Special Committee, in addition, consider-ed a report on the activities of foreign economicand other interests impeding the implementa-tion of the Declaration (on the Granting ofIndependence) in territories under Portugueseadministration, which it had requested on 3July 1964. (For details, see pp. 605-16.)

On 22 April 1965, the Special Committeerequested a similar study on the implications ofactivities of foreign economic and other interestsin Southern Rhodesia and their mode of opera-tion, in order to assess their economic andpolitical influence. (For details, see pp. 117-34.)

In its relations with other United Nationsbodies in 1965, the Special Committee, inaccordance with a General Assembly decisionof 11 December 19634 drew the attention ofthe Security Council to what it described asthe "grave situation" prevailing in both South-ern Rhodesia (see pp. 118-19) and Aden, to the"continued deterioration of the situation in theterritories under Portuguese domination," tothe "serious situation prevailing in South WestAfrica," and to "the threat to territorial in-tegrity" of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swazi-land "posed by the expansionist policy" of theGovernment of South Africa. (For details, seepp. 118-19, 556-57, 605-6, 595-97, and 563-64.)

On 21 December 1965, Cambodia havingresigned from the Special Committee, Afghani-stan was appointed by the President of the As-sembly to fill the vacancy which had occurred.(See also pp. 189-90.)

A feature of the Special Committee's activ-ities during 1965 was the series of meetingsit held in Ethiopia, the United Republic ofTanzania and Zambia. The Committee metin Lusaka (Zambia) from 25 to 28 May; inDar es Salaam (United Republic of Tanzania)from 31 May to 10 June; and in Addis Ababa(Ethiopia) from 14 to 18 June. In the courseof these meetings, the Committee heard 23

groups of petitioners and adopted resolutionson: Southern Rhodesia; the territories underPortuguese administration; South West Africa;and Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland.

On 18 June 1965, while in Addis Ababa,the Special Committee drew the attention ofthe General Assembly and the Security Councilto the explosive situation existing in the southernregion of Africa owing to "the intolerable behav-iour of the Governments of Portugal and SouthAfrica and the minority settler regime ofSouthern Rhodesia." It recommended that bothbodies, each acting within its own competence,should take positive measures laid down in theUnited Nations Charter with a view to: (a)ensuring respect for the rights of the Africanpopulations in the region and in particulartheir rights to self-determination and independ-ence, and putting an end to the dangerousactivities of the Governments and regime cited;and (b) strengthening the confidence whichthe peoples under colonial domination placedin the United Nations. The text of this resolu-tion was transmitted to the President of theSecurity Council on 21 July 1965.

In its report for 1965, the Special Committeewelcomed The Gambia's attainment of in-dependence on 18 February 1965. In reviewingthe situation in the territories to which it hadgiven considerable attention in 1964, the Com-mittee stated that it was deeply concernedby the further deterioration in the already gravesituation in these territories and by the increas-ingly serious threats to international peace andsecurity which had therefore developed. TheSpecial Committee once again emphasized thatit regarded the sending out of visiting groups asone of the most effective means of dischargingits mandate and recommended that the GeneralAssembly should call upon the administeringpowers to extend their full co-operation to thisend by permitting access, as desired by theSpecial Committee, to territories under theiradministration.

It placed special emphasis on a recommenda-tion to the General Assembly that it makefinancial provision to cover the expenses of theactivities of the Special Committee in 1966,

4

See Y.U.N., 1963, pp. 446-47, text of resolution1956(XVIII).


including the possibility of another series ofmeetings which it might hold in Africa, thesending out of visiting groups, and the super-vision of elections and other forms of consulta-tion of the wishes of colonial peoples.

CONSIDERATION BYGENERAL ASSEMBLY

General aspects of the question of the im-plementation of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples were considered by the GeneralAssembly at plenary meetings held between30 November and 20 December 1965.

The General Assembly had before it thereport of the Special Committee covering itswork in 1965, as well as that for 1964, whichthe Assembly had not been able to considerat its nineteenth session. Chapters of the SpecialCommittee's reports dealing with the situationsin specific territories were referred to the FourthCommittee.

Many of the delegations taking part in thedebate on general aspects of the question pointedout that, although five years had elapsed sincethe adoption by the Assembly of the Declara-tion on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples,5 more than 50territories, having a combined population ofover 40 million, were still under colonial regimes.Many representatives, including those of Ghanaand Poland, felt that the process of decoloniza-tion had been dangerously impeded, especiallyin southern Africa and South Arabia. Theintransigence of certain colonial powers anddominant minorities in these territories, it wasargued, constituted a permanent threat to inter-national peace and security. This threat, itwas contended by Albania, Bulgaria, the Congo(Brazzaville), Cuba, Guinea, the USSR, theUnited Arab Republic and the United Republicof Tanzania, among others, was especiallymarked in colonial territories where militarybases had been situated and directed againstnational liberation movements.

In this connexion, the United Kingdom statedthat these bases were needed to carry out peace-keeping obligations and to meet treaty com-mitments.

The majority of those speaking felt that theUnited Nations should modify its tactics to

deal more firmly with the administering powers.The United Nations, according to a statementof the Chairman of the Special Committee,should be, if not the spearhead in the battleagainst colonialism and apartheid, at least aprotector of oppressed peoples. The SpecialCommittee should be in a position to enterinto direct contact with populations undercolonial domination and to learn in the mostobjective ways their views and date of accessionto independence. In this connexion, it was re-commended that the General Assembly andSecurity Council adopt suitable measures toguarantee sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Most representatives, including those of Iraq,Italy, the Philippines and Tunisia, consideredthat, while concentrating on the major colonialterritories, the Special Committee should con-tinue to study the problems posed by smallor sparsely populated territories.

The representatives of Mali and Yugoslaviawere among those who favoured sending UnitedNations visiting missions to the territories con-cerned with the purpose of accelerating theimplementation of measures aimed at transfer-ring power to the representatives of the peopleand guaranteeing their independence.

Singapore and Pakistan suggested that 1970—the tenth anniversary of the Declaration andtwenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations—be set as a target date by which all colonialcountries should be free from all forms andmanifestations of colonialism.

The United Arab Republic said that it hadbeen the intention of the drafters of theAssembly's resolution of 27 November 1961which established the Special Committee,

6

tomake this Committee an action body and nota debating society. Tunisia maintained thatfour years of the Special Committee's workshowed that it was being hindered by lack ofco-operation on the part of the administeringpowers. Senegal considered that, with regardto the Special Committee, a little new bloodwould do no harm and could be beneficial.

On 17 December 1965, a draft resolutionwas proposed by 23 Members whereby the

5

See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50, text of resolution1514(XV).

See Y.U.N., 1961, p. 56, for text of resolution1654(XVI).


Assembly would, among other things: (1) deep-ly regret the refusal of certain colonial powersto co-operate with the Special Committee andtheir continued disregard of the Assembly'sresolutions; (2) call upon the colonial powersto discontinue their policy of violating the rightsof colonial peoples through the systematic influxof foreign immigrants and the dislocation, de-portation and transfer of indigenous inhabitants;(3) request the Special Committee to continueto perform its task; (4) approve the SpecialCommittee's work programme envisaged for1966, including the possibility of holding aseries of meetings in Africa, and sending outvisiting groups to territories; (5) ask the SpecialCommittee to pay particular attention to thesituation in small territories and to recommendthe most appropriate ways to enable theirpeoples to exercise fully their right to self-determination and independence; (6) ask theSpecial Committee, whenever it considered itappropriate, to recommend a deadline for theaccession of each territory to independence;(7) recognize the legitimacy of the colonialpeoples' struggle to exercise their right to self-determination and independence and invite allStates to provide assistance to national libera-tion movements in colonial territories; (8) re-quest all States and international institutionsto withhold assistance of any kind to Portugaland South Africa until they renounced theirpolicies of colonial domination and racialdiscrimination; (9) request colonial powers todismantle the military bases installed in colonialterritories and to refrain from establishing newones; (10) ask the Special Committee toapprise the Security Council of developmentsin any territory examined by it which mightthreaten international peace and security andmake suggestions which might assist the Councilin considering appropriate measures under theCharter; and (11) request the Secretary-Gen-eral to take all necessary measures to promotethe large-scale dissemination of the Declarationso that world opinion might be sufficiently in-formed about the serious threat to peace posedby colonialism and apartheid, and call uponthe administering powers to co-operate withhim.

The 23 powers sponsoring the proposal tothis effect were: Afghanistan, Algeria, Burundi,

Ceylon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India. Iraq,the Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania,Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tuni-sia, Uganda, the United Arab Republic, theUnited Republic of Tanzania, Yemen andYugoslavia.

When the 23-power draft resolution was cir-culated, the United States representative sub-mitted a motion whereby the Assembly wouldconsider the draft resolution as one makingrecommendations with respect to the mainte-nance of international peace and security andhence that Article 18, paragraph 2, of theCharter7 would apply to it (so that a two-thirds majority vote in favour would be re-quired for the Assembly to adopt the 23-powertext). The United States representative re-ferred specifically in this connexion to threeparagraphs in the 23-power text, namely: (a)a preambular paragraph whereby the Assem-bly would state its awareness that the con-tinuation of colonial rule and the practice ofapartheid, as well as all forms of racial dis-crimination, threatened international peace andsecurity and constituted a crime against hu-manity; (b) the operative paragraph askingthe colonial powers to dismantle the militarybases installed in colonial territories and torefrain from establishing new ones; and (c) theoperative paragraph requesting the SpecialCommittee to apprise the Security Council ofdevelopments in any territory examined by itwhich might threaten international peace andsecurity, and to make suggestions which mightassist the Council in considering appropriatemeasures under the Charter.

The representative of Mali pointed out thatwhen introducing the draft resolution, on 17December 1965, he had formally requested thatit be adopted by a simple majority. He feltthat, in conformity with the established prac-tice and with the rules of procedure, the As-sembly ought first to take a decision on hismotion.

The representative of the United States saidthat the question was essentially the same, nomatter what procedure was followed. One couldnot, he declared, go to the Security Council, on

7

For text of Article 18 of the Charter, see AP-PENDIX ii.


the one hand, and say that action was calledfor because international peace and securitywas threatened, and, on the other hand, saythat Article 18 of the Charter did not apply tothe Assembly's consideration of the question.Fidelity to the Charter required adherence to it.

In the debate which ensued on the proceduralissue, the representative of the USSR said thatan attempt was being made to undermine thepurposes of the draft resolution in the expecta-

tion that it would not obtain a two-thirds ma-jority vote; this erroneous interpretation ofthe rules of procedure should not prevent theAssembly from expressing its will. He pointedout that the judgement evoked in the draft wasgeneral in nature, that it imposed no concretecourse of action and was addressed to no con-crete, specific case. It therefore could not beconstrued as a recommendation which the As-sembly would adopt in discharging its dutiesunder the Charter in matters relating to inter-national peace and security.

Among those who supported this view, therepresentative of Guinea pointed out that asimilar resolution, concerning Southern Rho-desia, had already been adopted by the As-sembly without any request having been madefor a two-thirds majority. He also contendedthat the draft resolution did not make any"recommendations" concerning the mainte-nance of international peace and security; itsprovisions were "findings" only.

Iran considered that the operative para-graph in question dealing with the dismantlingof military bases went beyond colonial questionsand involved those which might have implica-tions with respect to the maintenance of inter-national peace and security. Honduras, whilesupporting the self-determination of peoples inall the various resolutions on human rights andthose tending to eliminate colonialism, con-sidered that the 23-power draft resolution in-volved the introduction of politics and policiesfar from the noble purposes of anti-colonialism;Honduras asked whether the dismantling ofbases was not a question of disarmament, anact of peace-keeping.

The procedural motion submitted by Maliwas then put to the vote, the United Stateshaving agreed that it would not ask for priorityin voting on its motion and noting that it

would have supported a proposal by Spain fora separate vote on the paragraphs of the 23-power text in question. The motion was adoptedby a roll-call vote of 59 to 45, with 4 absten-tions.8

The Assembly did not vote on the motionof the United States.

It proceeded at the same meeting, on 20 De-cember 1965, to vote on the text of the draftresolution.

Several representatives stated that, whereasin the past they had been able to support theDeclaration on the Granting of Independence,the establishment of the Special Committee andearlier resolutions concerning the implementa-tion of the Declaration, they were unable tosupport the 23-power text since certain aspectsof it were not acceptable. Norway, for example,considered, among other things, that it wasthe prerogative of the Security Council to de-termine the existence of a threat to the peaceor the application of economic sanctions againstcertain countries, and abstained. New Zealandprotested against the failure to take account ofdifferences between various types of colonialsituations and voted against the draft resolution.

The preambular paragraph describing colo-nial rule and apartheid as a threat to interna-tional peace and security was adopted by 63

8 Voting details were as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria,

Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Central AfricanRepublic, Ceylon, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Cuba,Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana,Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Iraq, Ivory Coast,Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia,Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Moroc-co, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines,Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria,Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Re-public, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta,Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia,Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,El Salvador, Finland, France, Guatemala, Hondu-ras, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Laos,Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand,Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Por-tugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tur-key, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay,Venezuela.

Abstaining: Haiti, Madagascar, Malaysia, Trini-dad and Tobago.


votes to 16, with 22 abstentions. The opera-tive paragraph calling for dismantling of mili-tary bases in colonial territories was adoptedby 49 votes to 37, with 18 abstentions. Theoperative paragraph asking the Special Com-mittee to apprise the Security Council of de-velopments threatening international peace and

security was adopted by 66 votes to 15, with 24abstentions.

The 23-power text as a whole was thenadopted by a roll-call vote of 74 to 6, with 27abstentions, as resolution 2105 (XX). (For fulltext of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFER-ENCES below.)


Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,meetings 320-393.

Sub-Committee on Petitions, meetings 58-72.

A/AC.109/L.188, L.191, L.195 and Corr.1.1, L. 200L.204, L.208, L.209, L.211, L.213, L.215, L.218,L.238, L.248, L.251 and L.258. Reports (56-70) ofSub-Committee on Petitions.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY——20TH SESSION

Plenary Meetings 1336, 1385-1390, 1398, 1400, 1405,1407, 1408.

A/5800/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee (cover-ing period 25 February-15 December 1964, meetings219-319).

A/5993. Letter of 15 September 1965 from SouthAfrica.

A/6000/Rev.l, Report of Special Committee (cover-ing period 6 April-10 November 1965, meetings320-393).

A/L.476 and Add.l. Algeria, Ceylon, Ethiopia, Gha-na, Guinea, India, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali,Mauritania, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tunisia,Uganda, United Arab Republic, United Republicof Tanzania, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

A/L.476/Rev.l, Rev.l/Corr.l, Rev.l/Add.l. Afgha-nistan, Algeria, Burundi, Ceylon, Ethiopia, Ghana,Guinea, India, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali,Mauritania, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Soma-lia, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Republic,United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia:revised draft resolution.

A/L.477. Somalia: amendments to 18-power draftresolution, A/L.476.

A/L.478. Motion submitted by United States.A/C.5/1043, A/6130, A/6134. Financial implications

of recommendations of Special Committee in Chap-ter I, para. 9, of its report (A/6000/Rev.l). Reportsby Secretary-General, Advisory Committee on Ad-ministrative and Budgetary Questions and FifthCommittee.

RESOLUTION 2105(xx), as proposed by 23 powers,A/L.476/Rev.l and Rev.l/Add.l, adopted by As-sembly on 20 December 1965, meeting 1405, byroll-call vote of 74 to 6, with 27 abstentions asfollows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina,Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, ByelorussianSSR, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad,Chile, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czecho-slovakia, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guinea,Haiti, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, IvoryCoast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon,Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia,Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland,Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, SierraLeone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Thailand,Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, UnitedArab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania,Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugo-slavia, Zambia.Against: Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, SouthAfrica. United Kingdom, United States.Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chi-na, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, ElSalvador, Finland, France, Guatemala, Honduras,Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Nether-lands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay,Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago.

"The General Assembly,"Recalling the Declaration on the Granting of In-

dependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, con-tained in its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December1960, and its resolutions 1654(XVI) of 27 Novem-ber 1961, 1810(XVII) of 17 December 1962 and1956(XVIII) of 11 December 1963,

"Recalling also its resolutions 1805(XVII) of 14December 1962 and 1899(XVIII) of 13 November1963 by which it assigned to the Special Committeeon the Situation with regard to the Implementa-tion of the Declaration on the Granting of Indepen-dence to Colonial Countries and People.; tasks relat-ing to South West Africa, and its resolution 1970(XVIII) of 16 December 1963 by which it entrustedto the Special Committee additional functions relat-ing to information transmitted under Article 73e ofthe Charter of the United Nations,

"Having considered the reports prepared by theSpecial Committee for the years 1964 and 1965,

"Noting with deep regret that five years after theadoption of the Declaration many Territories are stillunder colonial domination,


"Deploring the negative attitude of certain colonialPowers, and in particular the unacceptable attitude ofthe Governments of Portugal and South Africa, whichrefuse to recognize the right of colonial peoples toindependence,

"Concerned about the. policy of colonial Powersto circumvent the rights of colonial peoples throughthe promotion of the systematic influx of foreignimmigrants and the dislocation, deportation andtransfer of the indigenous inhabitants,

"Noting the action taken and envisaged by theSpecial Committee regarding the list of Territoriesto which the Declaration is applicable,

"Deploring further the attitude of certain Stateswhich, despite the resolutions of the General Assemblyand of the Special Committee, continue to co-operatewith the Governments of Portugal and South Africaand even to provide them with aid which is beingused by two Governments to intensify the repressionof the oppressed African populations,

"Fully aware that the continuation of colonial ruleand the practice of apartheid as well as all formsof racial discrimination threaten international peaceand security and constitute a crime against humanity,

"Having adopted resolutions on specific Territoriesconsidered by the Special Committee,

"1. Reaffirms its resolutions 1514(XV), 1654(XVI), 1810(XVII) and 1956(XVIII);

"2. Notes with appreciation the work accomplish-ed by the Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Declarationon the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples and congratulates it on the effortsit has made to implement the Declaration;

"3. Approves the reports of the Special Committeeand again invites the administering Powers to im-plement the recommendations contained therein;

"4. Deeply regrets the refusal of certain colonialPowers to co-operate with the Special Committee andtheir continued disregard of the resolutions of theGeneral Assembly;

"5. Calls upon the colonial Powers to discontinuetheir policy of violating the rights of colonial peoplesthrough the systematic influx of foreign immigrantsand the dislocation, deportation and transfer of theindigenous inhabitants;

"6. Requests the Special Committee to continueto perform its task and to continue to seek thebest means for the immediate and full applicationof resolution 1514(XV) to all Territories whichhave not yet attained independence;

"7. Approves the programme of work envisagedby the Special Committee during 1966, including thepossibility of holding a series of meetings in Africaand the sending of visitings groups to Territories,

particularly in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceanareas;

"8. Requests the Special Committee to pay par-ticular attention to the small Territories and torecommend to the General Assembly the most ap-propriate ways, as well as the steps to be taken, toenable the populations of those Territories to exercisefully their right to self-determination and indepen-dence ;

"9. Requests the Special Committee, whenever itconsiders it appropriate, to recommend a deadline forthe accession to independence of each Territory inaccordance with the wishes of the people;

"10. Recognizes the legitimacy of the struggle bythe peoples under colonial rule to exercise theirright to self-determination and independence andinvites all States to provide material and moral assist-ance to the national liberation movements in colonialTerritories;

"11. Requests all States and international institu-tions, including the specialized agencies of the UnitedNations, to withhold assistance of any kind to theGovernments of Portugal and South Africa untilthey renounce their policy of colonial domination andracial discrimination;

"12. Requests the colonial Powers to dismantlethe military bases installed in colonial Territories andto refrain from establishing new ones;

"13. Requests the Special Committee to apprisethe Security Council of developments in any Territoryexamined by it which may threaten internationalpeace and security and to make suggestions whichmight assist the Council in considering appropriatemeasures under the Charter of the United Nations;

"14. Requests the Secretary-General to take allnecessary measures to promote the large-scale disse-mination of the Declaration and of the work of theSpecial Committee, in order that world opinion maybe sufficiently informed of the serious threat to peaceposed by colonialism and apartheid, and calls uponall administering Powers to co-operate with the Sec-retary-General in his efforts;

"15. Requests the Secretary-General to continueto provide the Special Committee with all the facili-ties and personnel necessary for the implementationof its mandate."

WITHDRAWAL OF CAMBODIAA/5983. Letter of 20 September 1965 from Cam-

bodia.

OTHER DOCUMENTSA/C.4/640; A/C.4/664. Statements by Chairman of

Fourth Committee on 28 September 1965, meeting1517, and 20 December 1965, meeting 1594.

QUESTIONS CONCERNING INDIVIDUAL TERRITORIES

The following pages give a brief account ofdecisions concerning various individual terri-tories taken in 1965 by: the General Assem-

bly's Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Declara-tion on the Granting of Independence to Colo-


nial Countries and Peoples; and also by theGeneral Assembly. (See also pp. 594-605, 117-34and 605-16, for details on questions concerning

South West Africa, Southern Rhodesia andterritories under Portuguese administration.)

Aden

The territory of Aden, which is administeredby the United Kingdom, consists of the Colonyof Aden, known as Aden State, and 20 Pro-tectorates, known as the Protectorate of SouthArabia. Sixteen of the Protectorate States arejoined with Aden State in the Federation ofSouth Arabia. Also included in the territory arePerim Island, the Kuria Muria Islands andKamaran Island.

The situation in Aden, it will be recalled,was considered in 1963 by the General Assem-bly's 24-member Special Committee on theSituation with regard to the Implementationof the Declaration on the Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,following which—on 11 December 1963—theGeneral Assembly adopted a resolution callingupon the United Kingdom to take a series ofsteps to enable the people of the territory toexercise their right of self-determination.

By this resolution, it will be remembered,the General Assembly, among other things,called upon the United Kingdom Governmentto convene immediately a conference of repre-sentatives of all sectors of public opinion todecide on general elections which would befollowed by the establishment of a representa-tive government for the whole of the terri-tory and for the granting of immediate inde-pendence. The Assembly also: requested theSecretary-General, in consultation with theSpecial Committee of Twenty-Four and theadministering power, to arrange for an effectiveUnited Nations presence before and duringthese elections; reaffirmed that the maintenanceof the military base in Aden was prejudicialto peace and security in the region; and statedthat its early removal was therefore desirable.9

In 1964, the Special Committee again con-sidered the situation in Aden and made fur-ther recommendations concerning the territory.The Assembly was, however, unable to con-sider the question at its nineteenth session,owing to the special circumstances then prevail-ing.10 In 1965, the matter was considered by

both the Special Committee and the Gen-eral Assembly.

CONSIDERATION BYSPECIAL COMMITTEE

The Special Committee considered the ques-tion in April and May 1965, on the basis of areport submitted by its Sub-Committee onAden. (The Sub-Committee was composed ofthe representatives of Cambodia, Iraq, theIvory Coast, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.)

In reviewing recent developments in the ter-ritory, the Sub-Committee drew attention to:the decision by the United Kingdom to retainits military base in Aden in agreement with theFederal Government; the postponement of theconstitutional conference that was to have beenheld in London in March 1965; and the con-tinuation by the United Kingdom of the stateof emergency and military operations in theterritory. The Sub-Committee deplored the factthat the United Nations resolutions were stillnot being implemented by the administeringpower. It noted that there had been signs ofa slight change in the attitude of the admin-istering power, such as its support of the con-cept of a unitary state for the area and itsapparent willingness to widen representation atthe constitutional conference. It remained fullyconvinced that the solution of the question couldbest be found through the immediate and fullimplementation of the United Nations resolu-tions. The Sub-Committee felt that the situa-tion continued to be extremely serious and de-manded the urgent attention of the SpecialCommittee.

On 17 May 1965, by 19 votes to 3, with 2abstentions, the Special Committee adopted aresolution whereby it endorsed the Sub-Com-mittee's conclusions and called upon the UnitedKingdom Government to implerr.ent the Gen-eral Assembly's resolution of 11 December 1963

See Y.U.N., 1963, pp. 454-55, for full text ofresolution 1949 (XVIII).

10 See Y.U.N., 1964, pp. 414-17.

9


on the situation in Aden. It also drew theattention of the Security Council to the gravesituation prevailing in the territory and re-quested the Sub-Committee on Aden to keepthe question under constant review and toreport to the Committee as necessary.

The resolution was sponsored in the SpecialCommittee by Cambodia, Ethiopia, India, Iran,Iraq, Mali, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tunisia, theUnited Republic of Tanzania, and Yugo-slavia.

Among others who supported it was theUSSR, which maintained that, although theUnited Kingdom Government had made vaguepromises about independence for the peoplesof Aden and about their right of self-determi-nation, it had not said a word about the powersto be exercised by the future unitary state.Aden had become an important link in thechain of United Kingdom military bases andthe United Kingdom policy of delaying inde-pendence was prompted by economic and mili-tary considerations.

Australia, the United Kingdom and theUnited States opposed the resolution.

The representative of the United Kingdomreiterated his Government's intention of grant-ing independence to South Arabia, as a uni-tary state, not later than 1968. He recalledthat a constitutional conference had beenplanned for March 1965 but that it had to bepostponed because there was not yet a suffi-cient consensus in South Arabia about theform of government desired by the people ofthe territory. There was a wide measure ofagreement about the objectives and long-termconstitutional aims but not about the practicalproblems involved. The administering power in-tended to continue with its plans by sending outa constitutional commission on Aden's consti-tutional problems and it wished to give SouthArabia independence in peace and with order.

The state of emergency and the restrictionlaws, added the representative of the UnitedKingdom, had been made necessary by thesituation on the borders of the Federation, byincitement to violence from neighbouring coun-tries and by acts of violence within the Fed-eration. The restrictions were under constantreview and would not be unnecessarily main-tained. With regard to the military base, he said

his Government's policy was that it would re-tain the base in Aden, in agreement with theGovernment of the Federation of South Arabia,for as long as it was required to serve thecommon interests of the two Governments. TheUnited Kingdom Government intended that theeventual arrangements for the base should benegotiated between itself and the Governmentof the new State at the time when South Arabiabecame independent.

Denmark and Italy said they would abstain inthe vote as the resolution did not, among otherthings, reflect the progressive developments inthe territory.

In the course of meetings which it held inJune in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the SpecialCommittee heard statements from QahtanShaabi and Saif Dhalee, speaking for the Na-tional Front for the Liberation of OccupiedSouth Yemen.

The Special Committee gave further consid-eration to the question of Aden in September1965, in the context of a further report sub-mitted by its Sub-Committee on Aden. In itsreview of recent developments in the territory,the Sub-Committee drew attention to: the de-cisions of the Aden Legislative Council in Maycalling on the United Kingdom Government tobase its policy on the United Nations resolu-tions on the territory; the withdrawal in Julyof the Sudanese member of the South Arabianconstitutional commission established by theUnited Kingdom; and the failure of talks heldin London during August to prepare an agendafor a constitutional conference.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the situ-ation in Aden was still serious and should beclosely followed, so that it could, if necessary,be brought to the attention of the SecurityCouncil. It felt that the failure of both the pro-posed constitutional commission and the Lon-don talks held in August could be attributedto the refusal by the United Kingdom toaccept the provisions of the General Assembly'sresolution of 11 December 1963 on the ques-tion of Aden which, it pointed out, not onlyset out principles but also outlined the methodswhereby self-determination and independencemight be achieved. It emphasized the pressingneed for the United Kingdom to take practicalsteps, without delay, to implement this resolu-


tion while the present widespread support forthe resolution remained. The Sub-Committeealso reiterated the provisions of this resolutionwith regard to the military base on Aden. Thisresolution had stated that the base was preju-dicial to peace and security in the region andthat its early removal was desirable.

The Special Committee decided, without ob-jection, to take note of the Sub-Committee'sreport, endorse the conclusions in that reportand transmit it to the General Assembly. Beforethis decision was taken, the representatives ofIraq, Syria, the USSR and Yugoslavia statedthat the military base should be removed im-mediately. Australia, Denmark, the UnitedKingdom and the United States reserved theirposition on the report and on the conclusions.


Later in the year, at the General Assembly'stwentieth session, the question of Aden was dis-cussed mostly in the Assembly's Fourth Com-mittee.

The following petitioners were heard by theFourth Committee: Abdul Qawee Mackawee;Qahtan Shaabi and Saif Dhalee (speaking forthe National Front for the Liberation of Oc-cupied South Yemen); Shaikhan A. Alhabshi(speaking for the South Arabian League); andMohammed Salem Basendwah and AhmadAbdullah Al-Fadhli (speaking on behalf of theOrganization for the Liberation of the OccupiedSouth).

Mr. Mackawee, who had been Aden's ChiefMinister when its Constitution -was suspendedon 25 September 1965, described the situationin the territory as explosive as a result of Brit-ish policies. He and the other petitioners saidthat the recent constitutional proposals whichhad been made by the United Kingdom hadbeen wholly rejected by the political organiza-tions, the Aden Ministers and the delegates ofthe Eastern Aden Protectorates because theyfell short of what the United Nations had askedfor in its resolutions on Aden, which, they be-lieved, constituted the minimum demand ofthe people and formed the minimum guaran-tees for a just and democratic introduction togenuine independence.

The representative of the United Kingdomsaid that his Government's aim in South Arabiawas to bring together a score of protected Statesand the Colony of Aden to form a single viableindependent State, not later than 1968. Cer-tain elements in Aden State had refused to co-operate in working out the necessary steps inorder to achieve this purpose. His Govern-ment's aim had been further jeopardized by aterrorist campaign and by the attitude of theformer Aden Ministers in not only failing tocondemn that terrorism, but in publicly sup-porting the externally controlled organizationof the terrorist campaign. His Government ac-cepted without any qualification what he de-scribed as the most important paragraph ofthe General Assembly's resolution of 11 Decem-ber 1963 on the Aden question, namely, thatwhich reaffirmed the right of the people to self-determination and freedom from colonial rule.On the other constitutional paragraphs of thatresolution, the United Kingdom representativeadded, there was little or no disagreement onvital principles, once agreement between theleaders of South Arabia had been reached. TheUnited Kingdom Government's attitude tothe military base was that the future of anydefence facilities should be a matter for nego-tiation with the Government of the new Stateat the time of independence and that no basewas militarily or morally defensible unless ithad the support of the people of the territoryin which it was situated. The United Kingdomrepresentative reiterated that his Governmentcould not put into effect the Assembly's recom-mendations on the emergency measures and themilitary operations as long as the campaign ofterrorism and violence continued.

A number of Members referred to the failureof the United Kingdom to accept and imple-ment the United Nations resolutions on theterritory. Some, including Algeria, Czechoslo-vakia and the Ukrainian SSR, questioned thesincerity of the United Kingdom in this re-gard. In their view, the United Kingdom waswaging a colonial war against the people of theterritory and was seeking to prolong its rulethere. Czechoslovakia, Ghana, the USSR, theUnited Arab Republic and Yugoslavia con-sidered that the United Kingdom was pursu-


ing this policy in Aden because of the oil in thearea and because of its strategic interests there.Iraq was among those who stressed the im-portance of genuine independence for the wholeterritory. The USSR and Yemen maintainedthat the United Kingdom was trying to createa "false" independence and to hand over powerto a group of feudal puppets.

Some Members—including Bulgaria, Kenya,the United Arab Republic, the United Repub-lic of Tanzania, Yemen and Yugoslavia—saidthat the efforts being made by the people tofree themselves from colonialism could not bedescribed as "terrorism."

Cyprus, Ecuador, India, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait,Libya, Somalia, Syria, Uganda and others be-lieved that the solution could best be found bythe United Kingdom's implementing the de-cisions of the United Nations. Albania, Ghana,Jordan, Mali, Morocco, Somalia and Syria,were among those which thought that thesedecisions should be strengthened by demand-ing the immediate removal of the military base.Another suggestion put forward—by Mongolia,Poland and the USSR, among others—wasthat the Assembly should draw the attention ofthe Security Council to the dangerous situationprevailing in the area. Ceylon, supported byIran, suggested the appointment of a commit-tee of good offices to bring the parties togetherto decide on machinery for holding elections.

Denmark maintained that, in order to createthe proper political climate to enable the con-stitutional basis for an independent South Arabiato be worked out before 1968, it was essentialfor all acts of violence to cease and for theadministering power to revoke the emergencymeasures. Australia pointed out that politicalnegotiations could not be carried on, andpreparations for independence could not ad-vance, in an atmosphere of terror; the repre-sentatives of all shades of opinion should, inAustralia's view, agree to subordinate theirparticular ideas in the common interest andwork together for the realization of the essen-tial aim, namely, the accession of the territoryto independence by 1968.

The outcome of the discussions was a reso-lution (approved by the Fourth Committee on3 November and adopted at a plenary meet-

ing of the Assembly on 5 November) wherebythe Assembly, deeply concerned at the criticaland explosive situation threatening peace andsecurity in the area arising from the policiespursued in the territory by the administeringpower, deplored the administering power's re-fusal to implement the resolutions on the Adenquestion adopted by the Assembly and theSpecial Committee. It also deplored the at-tempts of the administering power to set up anunrepresentative regime in the territory so asto grant it independence contrary to previousGeneral Assembly resolutions. The Assemblyappealed to all States not to recognize any in-dependence which was not based on the wishesof the people of the territory freely expressedthrough elections held under universal adultsuffrage. Reaffirming the inalienable right ofthe people of the territory to self-determinationand to freedom from colonial rule, the Assemblyconsidered that the maintenance of militarybases in the territory constituted a major obstacleto its liberation from colonial domination andwas prejudicial to the peace and security ofthe region, and that the immediate and com-plete removal of these bases was therefore essen-tial.

Noting with deep concern that military op-erations against the people of the territorywere still being carried out, the Assembly urgedthe administering power immediately to abolishthe state of emergency, repeal all laws restrict-ing public freedom, cease all repressive actionsin the territory (in particular military opera-tions), release all political detainees and allowthe return of those who had been exiled orforbidden to reside in the territory because ofpolitical activities. The Assembly reaffirmedthose paragraphs of its resolution of 11 Decem-ber 1963 dealing with the exercise of the rightof self-determination and steps to be taken inconnexion with elections, and it urged the ad-ministering power to implement them imme-diately.

The Assembly also: appealed to all MemberStates to render all possible assistance to theterritory in its efforts to attain freedom andindependence; drew the attention of the Secu-rity Council to the dangerous situation prevail-ing in the area as a result of British military


action against the people of the territory; re-quested the United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees, the specialized agencies and theinternational relief organizations to offer allpossible assistance to the people who were suf-fering as a result of the military operationsin the territory; and requested the Secretary-General to take such action as he might deemexpedient to ensure the implementation of thepresent resolution and report thereon to theSpecial Committee. (For full text, see DOCU-MENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The following 45 Members were the spon-sors of this resolution in the Fourth Commit-tee: Afghanistan, Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon,the Congo (Brazzaville), the Democratic Re-public of the Congo, Cyprus, Dahomey, Ecua-dor, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Iran,Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia,Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia,Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda,Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia,Sudan, Syria, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,Tunisia, Uganda, the United Arab Republic,the United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta,Yugoslavia and Zambia.

Their proposal, as finally approved, incorpo-rated some oral amendments put forward byVenezuela.

The Fourth Committee agreed to this resolu-tion by a roll-call vote of 83 to 11, with 8 ab-stentions. The Assembly approved it by a roll-call vote of 90 to 11, with 10 abstentions, asresolution 2023 (XX).

Introducing the draft resolution in the FourthCommittee, the representatives of Cyprus, Iraqand the United Republic of Tanzania said thatthe reports of the Sub-Committee, as well asthe statements of representatives and petition-ers in the Fourth Committee, demonstratedthat, instead of heeding the wishes of the peopleof Aden, the United Kingdom had merelystated its intention of granting independenceto the territory by 1968 and was continuingto oppress the indigenous inhabitants by mili-tary and other means. They stressed that theresolution which they supported represented theminimum that could be done to meet thewishes of the people of the territory. It wasdesigned to ensure that the independence whichthe United Kingdom granted to the territory

would be in accordance with the freely ex-pressed wishes of the inhabitants. Events hadshown that the military base constituted oneof the major obstacles in the way of the attain-ment of independence by the inhabitants ofthe territory. The resolution therefore stressedthat the immediate and complete removal ofthe base was essential. The sponsors attachedconsiderable importance to the request to theSecretary-General not only to report to theSpecial Committee but also to take such actionas he deemed expedient to ensure the implemen-tation of the resolution.

The United Kingdom representative opposedthe resolution, stating that its sponsors seemedto have taken into account only the views ofcertain petitioners who had tried to give theimpression that they represented the peoples ofthe territory as a whole, whereas they had oftendistorted the facts. The resolution seemed,moreover, to be based on the situation in AdenState alone, without regard for the situationin the remaining States of the Federation andin the unfederated States of the Protectorate.It misrepresented the position of his Govern-ment and ignored the efforts it was making.Furthermore, the draft resolution gave the clearimpression of condoning and encouraging thecampaign of violence and terrorism which wasnot and never had been a nationalist move-ment but was an instrument used by an outsidecountry in pursuance of its own ambitions inSouth Arabia.

Other Members opposing the resolution—in-cluding Australia, Canada, Italy and the UnitedStates—felt that it would only be fair to takeinto account the assurances of the administer-ing power and to recognize that efforts to reacha solution had been made. They also did notconsider that the situation in Aden threatenedpeace and security within the meaning of theUnited Nations Charter. They believed thatconstitutional development must take place onthe basis of consultations between the politicalleaders of South Arabia and the administeringpower. The Fourth Committee, they said, shouldnot attempt to impose a rigid time-table on theparties concerned nor should it prejudge thestand which the people of Aden would takewith regard to the military base following in-dependence. They felt, too, that the resolution


did not deal adequately with the question ofterrorism; the United States was concerned lestsome of the paragraphs were construed as anendorsement by the United Nations of violence.

The paragraph calling for the immediateremoval of military bases, which was voted onseparately at the request of Colombia, was ap-proved by the Fourth Committee by a roll-callvote of 60 to 20, with 22 abstentions.

The General Assembly also took a roll-callvote on the paragraph calling for the immediateremoval of military bases, which it adopted by64 votes to 22, with 25 abstentions.

COMMUNICATIONS TOSECURITY COUNCIL

In a letter dated 5 October 1965, addressedto the President of the Security Council, 12United Nations Member Governments—Algeria,Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mo-rocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, the UnitedArab Republic and Yemen—reviewed eventsin Aden from 25 September 1965, when theUnited Kingdom Government suspended theAden Constitution and dismissed the Councilof Ministers of Aden. Recent measures againstthe people of the territory, the letter said, mustbe considered as an act of open defiance ofthe United Nations and a deliberate attemptto consolidate colonial rule and to deny the

people their fundamental rights to freedom andself-determination. The existence of the Brit-ish military base in Aden, the letter added,threatened peace and security in the whole re-gion and its removal was necessary and essen-tial. The situation in the territory, the letterconcluded, constituted a "grave threat to inter-national peace and security" which requiredthe urgent attention of the Security Council.

On 13 October, the United Kingdom repliedby letter, stating that it could not accept certainallegations in the 12-power letter. The UnitedKingdom had frequently declared its firm inten-tion of bringing South Arabia to independencenot later than 1968. Action taken by the UnitedKingdom, in a matter wholly within its ownresponsibilities, had as its objective the restora-tion of peaceful conditions and progress to-wards the self-determination and independenceof South Arabia. These measures were there-fore not contrary to the provisions of the UnitedNations Charter. Nor did they constitute anattempt to deny the exercise of freedom andself-determination to the Aden people. TheUnited Kingdom also rejected the suggestionin the 12-power letter that the situation in theterritory constituted a grave threat to interna-tional peace and security requiring the atten-tion of the Security Council.


Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of In-dependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,meetings 329-338, 370, 386.


Fourth Committee, meetings 1517, 1528-1538, 1545-1548, 1594.

Plenary Meeting 1368.

A/5800/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee to 19thAssembly session, Chapter VI.

A/6000/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee to 20thAssembly session, Chapter VI.

A/6095. Letter of 5 November 1965 from UnitedKingdom.

A/C.4/642 and Add.1-3. Requests for hearings.A/C.4/646. Letter of 6 October 1965 from United

Kingdom.A/C.4/651. Statement by Abdul Qawee Mackawee

on 14 October 1965, meeting 1528.A/C.4/652. Statement by Qahtan Muhammad Shaabi,

Secretary-General of National Front for Liberation

of Occupied South of Yemen, on 18 October 1965,meeting 1530.

A/C.4/653. Statement by representative of Iraq on22 October 1965, meeting 1536.

A/C.4/664. Statement by Chairman of Fourth Com-mittee on 20 December 1965, meeting 1594.

A/C.4/L.798 and Add.l, 2. Afghanistan, Algeria,Burundi, Cameroon, Congo (Brazzaville), Cyprus,Dahomey, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecua-dor, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Iran, Iraq,Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya,Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco,Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia,Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, To-go, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, UnitedArab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Up-per Volta, Yugoslavia, Zambia: draft resolution,as orally revised, adopted by Fourth Committee on3 November 1965, meeting 1547, by roll-call voteof 83 to 11, with 8 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argen-tina, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi,Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Central African Re-


public, Ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo(Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of the Congo,Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Daho-mey, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala,Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Iran,Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait,Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi,Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia,Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru,Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, SaudiArabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain,Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and To-bago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR,USSR, United Arab Republic, United Republic ofTanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Ye-men, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Italy,Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa,United Kingdom, United States.Abstaining: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland,Israel, Japan, Norway, Sweden.

A/6089. Report of Fourth Committee.RESOLUTION 2023 (xx), as recommended by Fourth

Committee, A/6089, adopted by Assembly on 5November 1965, meeting 1368, by roll-call voteof 90 to 11, with 10 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argenti-na, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, ByelorussianSSR, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Ceylon,Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville),Democratic Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica,Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Domi-nican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia,Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti,Honduras, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast,Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon,Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia,Maldive Islands, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mon-golia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan,Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania,Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone. Sing-apore, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Thailand,Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey,Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Re-public, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta,Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France,Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal,South Africa, United Kingdom, United States.Abstaining: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland,Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden.

"The General Assembly,"Having considered the chapters of the reports of

the Special Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples relating to the Territory of Aden, which in-cludes, in addition to Aden, the Eastern and WesternAden Protectorates as well as the Islands of Perim,

Kuria Muria, Kamaran and other ofl-shore islands,"Recalling its resolutions 1514(XV) of 14 Decem-

ber 1960 and 1949(XVIII) of 11 December 1963,and the resolutions adopted by the Special Committeeon 9 April 1964, 11 May 1964 and 17 May 1965,

"Having heard the statements of the petitioners,"Having taken note of the declarations of the

representative of the administering Power,"Deeply concerned at the critical and explosive

situation which is threatening peace and security inthe area, arising from the policies pursued by theadministering Power in the Territory,

"1. Approves the chapters of the reports of theSpecial Committee on the Situation with regard tothe Implementation of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples relating to the Territory of Aden and endorsesthe conclusions and recommendations; of the Sub-Committee on Aden;

"2. Endorses the resolutions adopted by the SpecialCommittee on 9 April 1964, 11 May 1964 and 17May 1965;

"3. Deplores the refusal of the administeringPower to implement the resolutions of the GeneralAssembly and the Special Committee;

"4. Further deplores the attempts of the adminis-tering Power to set up an unrepresentative regimein the Territory, with a view to granting it indepen-dence contrary to General Assembly resolutions 1514(XV) and 1949(XVIII), and appeals to all Statesnot to recognize any independence which is notbased on the wishes of the people of the Territoryfreely expressed through elections held under universaladult suffrage;

"5. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peopleof the Territory to self-determination and to freedomfrom colonial rule and recognizes the legitimacy oftheir efforts to achieve the rights laid down in theCharter of the United Nations, the Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights and the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples;

"6. Considers that the maintenance of the militarybases in the Territory constitutes a major obstacleto the liberation of the people of the Territoryfrom colonial domination and is prejudicial to thepeace and security of the region, and that the im-mediate and complete removal of these bases is there-fore essential;

"7. Notes with deep concern that "military opera-tions against the people of the Territory are stillbeing carried out by the administering Power;

"8. Urges the United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern Ireland immediately to:

"(a) Abolish the state of emergency;"(b) Repeal all laws restricting public freedom;"(c) Cease all repressive actions against the people

of the Territory, in particular military operations;"(d) Release all political detainees and allow the

return of those people who have been exiled or for-


bidden to reside in the Territory because of politicalactivities;

"9. Reaffirms paragraphs 6 to 11 of resolution1949(XVIII) and urges the administering Powerto implement them immediately;

"10. Appeals to all Member States to render allpossible assistance to the people of the Territory intheir efforts to attain freedom and independence;

"11. Draws the attention of the Security Councilto the dangerous situation prevailing in the area asa result of British military action against the peopleof the Territory;

"12. Requests the United Nations High Commis-sioner for Refugees, the specialized agencies and theinternational relief organizations to offer all possibleassistance to the people who are suffering as a resultof the military operations in the Territory;

"13. Requests the Secretary-General to take suchaction as he may deem expedient to ensure the im-plementation of the present resolution, and to reportthereon to the Special Committee;

"14. Requests the Special Committee to examine

again the situation in the Territory and to reportthereon to the General Assembly at its twenty-firstsession;

"15. Decides to maintain this item on its agenda."

A/6179. Letter of 14 December 1965 from USSR.

OTHER DOCUMENTSS/6368. Letter of 18 May 1965 from Chairman of

Special Committee transmitting text of resolutionon question of Aden adopted by Special Committeeat its 338th meeting on 17 May 1965.

S/6748. Letter of 5 October 1965 from Algeria,Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco,Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Republicand Yemen.

S/6786. Letter of 13 October 1965 from UnitedKingdom.

S/6900. Letter from President of General Assemblytransmitting text of resolution 2023(XX) adoptedby Assembly on 5 November 1965, meeting 1368.

Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland

The situation in the British-administered terri-tories of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swazi-land, which are adjacent to South Africa, hasbeen under consideration by the United Na-tions General Assembly since 1962. During thattime, the Assembly and its 24-member Spe-cial Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration onthe Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples have adopted resolutionsurging the United Kingdom to implement theAssembly's Declaration on granting independ-ence (adopted on 14 December I960)11 in theseterritories. They have also voiced concern atthe economic situation of the territories andtheir relationship with South Africa.

Elections were held in Basutoland in April1965, and in Bechuanaland in March 1965,under pre-independence constitutions agreedupon at constitutional conferences held in 1964.Elections were most recently held in Swazilandin June 1964. Swaziland's constitutional posi-tion towards independence in 1965 was less ad-vanced than that of either of the other two ter-ritories.

In 1965, the situation in these three terri-tories was again considered by the Special Com-mittee and the General Assembly.


The Special Committee considered the situa-tion in Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swazi-land in the course of its visit to Africa in Mayand June 1965, during which it heard the fol-lowing petitioners: I. B. Tabata, representingthe Unity Movement of South Africa; A. B.Ngcobo and Z. B. Molete, representing the Pan-Africanist Congress of South Africa (PAC);Bishop Mpeta and L. A. Matooane, represent-ing the Basutoland Congress Party; and J. J.Nquku, representing the Swaziland ProgressiveParty.

On 17 June 1965, the Special Committeeadopted a resolution, by a roll-call vote of 17 to0, with 6 abstentions, by which it: reiteratedits previous requests to the administering power;drew the attention of the Security Council tothe threat to the territorial integrity of theterritories posed by the expansionist policy ofthe Government of South Africa; and recom-mended that the General Assembly and theSecurity Council urgently consider and ini-tiate the measures necessary to ensure the ter-ritorial integrity of the territories and the safe-guarding of their sovereignty.

See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50.11


In September 1965, the Special Committeeagain took up the question of the situation inthe three territories in the context of a reportby the. Secretary-General, submitted at theCommittee's request, on the economic and so-cial development needs of the territories. An-nexed to it was the report of an economic andtechnical assistance mission sent out in con-sultation with the United Kingdom, whichvisited the territories in May and June 1965.The Secretary-General noted that the missionhad concluded that considerable funds wouldhave to be made available to the three terri-tories to develop the various sectors of theireconomies. He proposed the establishment ofa fund to aid in the economic development ofBasutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland whichwould supplement the assistance provided by theadministering power and the agencies of theUnited Nations. Such a fund would be made upof voluntary contributions by United NationsMember States and would be administered bythe Secretary-General, in close consultation withthe Governments of the three territories andwith the co-operation and assistance of theUnited Nations Special Fund, the TechnicalAssistance Board (TAB), the Economic Com-mission for Africa (ECA) and the specializedagencies concerned. The Secretary-General alsosaid that, at the appropriate time, he wouldrecommend the establishment in each territoryof a United Nations Technical Assistance Officeheaded by a Resident Representative to ex-pedite and co-ordinate all United Nations as-sistance to the territory concerned, includingthat made available from the proposed fund,if one was established on the basis of his pro-posals.

On 20 September, the Special Committee en-dorsed the Secretary-General's recommenda-tions by a vote of 18 to 0, with 4 abstentions.


In 1965, at the twentieth session of the Gen-eral Assembly, the situation in Basutoland,Bechuanaland and Swaziland was discussed onthe basis of the reports of the Special Commit-tee of Twenty-Four for 1964 and 1965 andthe report of the Secretary-General on eco-

nomic and social development needs in the ter-ritories (see above). Debate took place mostlyin the Assembly's Fourth Committee.

The United Kingdom informed the Assem-bly's Fourth Committee that Basutoland andBechuanaland were expected to achieve theirindependence during 1966 and that, in Swazi-land, a committee had been appointed to re-view the constitution.

Concern at the total economic: dependenceof the territories on South Africa was expressedby many Members, including Ethiopia, India,Iraq, Liberia, Nigeria and the United ArabRepublic. This dependence, it was felt, hadhindered the territories' political advancementand would render their political independenceprecarious and unreal. The remedy, it wasstated, lay in effective economic and financialassistance from the United Nations which shouldbe provided as a matter of urgency. These Mem-bers therefore supported the Secretary-General'sproposal for a special fund for the economicdevelopment of the territories.

Nigeria and the Byelorussian SSR were amongthose which charged that South Africa was try-ing to achieve the political subjugation of theterritories and that it was being encouraged inthis by the United Kingdom, which had takenno effective steps to bring about independenceor to protect the territories from South Africa.These and other Members, including the USSR,stressed the need to create conditions to ensuregenuine independence and not a continuationof colonial rule in a different form. Algeria feltthat the United Nations should guarantee theterritorial integrity of these territories as hadbeen recommended by the Organization ofAfrican Unity (OAU) in 1964. The Byelorus-sian SSR and the USSR maintained that theconstitutions were still undemocratic and thatelections held under their provisions could notbe expected to reflect the true desires andwishes of the people.

The representative of South Africa deniedthe allegations that his country was seeking todominate or annex the territories. He said thatthe ties existing between his country and thethree territories were mutually beneficial, andconstituted no threat to their territorial in-tegrity. South Africa welcomed their evolution


towards independence in an atmosphere ofgood neighbourliness, regarding it as an ex-ample of the concept of separate development.Because of that policy, South Africa had openlyabandoned the provisions for incorporation con-tained in the South Africa Act of 1909.

During the discussions, a draft resolution wassubmitted to the Fourth Committee, sponsoredby 31 Members. By this text, the Assemblywould: endorse the Special Committee's con-clusions and recommendations; reaffirm the in-alienable right of the peoples of the territoriesto freedom and independence; once again in-vite the administering power to take urgentsteps to implement fully the Assembly's resolu-tions in conformity with the freely expressedwishes of the peoples of the three territories;renew its request that the administering powertake immediate steps to return to the indige-nous inhabitants all the land taken from them;request the Special Committee of Twenty-Fourto consider, in co-operation with the Secretary-General, necessary measures for securing theterritorial integrity and sovereignty of thethree territories and to report to the Assemblyin 1966; endorse the recommendations con-tained in the Secretary-General's report; de-cide to establish a fund for the economic de-velopment of the three territories to be madeup of voluntary contributions and to be ad-ministered by the Secretary-General in closeconsultation with the Governments of the ter-ritories and with the co-operation and assist-ance of the various United Nations agenciesand organs concerned; consider that the effortsto provide economic, financial and technicalassistance, through United Nations programmesof technical co-operation and the specializedagencies, should continue in order to remedythe deplorable economic and social situation ofthe three territories; and request the Secretary-General to appoint resident representatives inthese territories, and to report to the Assemblyin 1966 on the operation of the fund.

The 31 sponsors of the proposal to this effectwere Algeria, Cameroon, the Congo (Brazza-ville), the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Dahomey, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Iran,Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon,Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger,

Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, the United ArabRepublic, the United Republic of Tanzania, andZambia.

Iran and Mali, speaking for the sponsors,said the draft resolution was designed to leadthe three territories rapidly to independence,to safeguard their territorial integrity and sov-ereignty and to ward off the threat of domina-tion by South Africa.

Commenting on the proposal, the UnitedKingdom pointed out that it made no refer-ence to the constitutional progress that hadtaken place, or even to the fact that Basutolandand Bechuanaland were due to become inde-pendent during 1966. The references to deplor-able economic and social conditions in the ter-ritories were not justified; in fact, those condi-tions did not compare unfavourably with thosein many similar parts of the world. The UnitedKingdom welcomed any offer of supplementaryassistance to the territories and would co-oper-ate in the administration of the proposed fundwhile continuing to give bilateral aid.

Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zea-land, Sweden, the United States and othersagreed that the draft did not take into accountwhat the administering power had done to pro-mote the political and economic developmentof the territories. Reservations concerning theproposal to establish a special fund were ex-pressed by Belgium, Canada, Finland, Greeceand Sweden, among others. While supportingthe need to give special aid to the territories,they did not feel that establishment of a sepa-rate fund would accord with the efforts beingmade to co-ordinate United Nations pro-grammes of development.

On 9 November 1965, the Fourth Committeeapproved the 31-power draft resolution by 84votes to 1, with 6 abstentions. Before this, the-paragraph calling for establishment of a spe-cial fund was approved in a separate vote, byroll call, by 79 to 0, with 12 abstentions. Ata plenary meeting on 16 December 1965, theAssembly adopted the text as a whole as reso-lution 2063 (XX), by 86 votes to 1, with 7 ab-stentions. (For full text of resolution, see DOCU-MENTARY REFERENCES below.)



Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of In-dependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,meetings 347, 357-360, 365, 368-370, 372, 373,383-387.


Fourth Committee, meetings 1517, 1539, 1543, 1545,1546, 1548, 1549, 1551, 1552.


A/5800/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee to 19thAssembly session, Chapter VIII.

A/5958. Report of Secretary-General.A/5993. Letter of 15 September 1965 from Republic

of South Africa.A/6000/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee to 20th

Assembly session, Chapter VII.A/C.4/L.801 and Add.l, 2. Algeria, Cameroon,

Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Con-go, Dahomey, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India,Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon,Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nige-ria, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan,Syria, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Zambia: draft resolution,as orally revised, adopted by Fourth Committeeon 9 November 1965, meeting 1551, by 84 votes to1, with 6 abstentions.

A/6106. Report of Fourth Committee.RESOLUTION 2063 (xx), as recommended by Fourth

Committee, A/6106, adopted by Assembly on 16December 1965, meeting 1398, by 86 votes to 1,with 7 abstentions.

"The General Assembly,"Having examined the chapters of the reports

of the Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Declarationon the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples relating to the Territories of Basu-toland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland,

"Having examined further the report submitted bythe Secretary-General pursuant to the request madeby the Special Committee in its resolution of 2 No-vember, 1964,

"Recalling its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December1960 containing the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,

"Recalling further its resolutions 1654(XVI) of27 November 1961, 1817(XVII) of 18 December1962 and 1954(XVIII) of 11 December 1963,

"Noting the resolutions adopted by the Assemblyof Heads of State and Government of the Organiza-tion of African Unity at its first regular session inJuly 1964, and the Declaration adopted by theSecond Conference of Heads of State or Govern-ment of Non-Aligned Countries in October 1964 tothe effect that the United Nations should guaranteethe territorial integrity of Basutoland, Bechuanaland

and Swaziland and should take measures for theirspeedy accession to independence and for the sub-sequent safeguarding of their sovereignty,

"Noting with deep concern the economic andsocial situation prevailing in the three Territoriesand their imperative and urgent need for UnitedNations assistance,

"Having regard to the grave threat to the terri-torial integrity and economic stability of these Terri-tories constituted by the policies of the presentregime in the Republic of South Africa,

"Regretting that the administering Power of theseTerritories has not taken effective and complete stepsto implement General Assembly resolutions 1514(XV), 1817(XVII) and 1954(XVI1I),

"1. Approves the chapters of the reports of theSpecial Committee on the Situation with regard tothe Implementation of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples relating to the Territories of Basutoland,Bechuanaland and Swaziland, and endorses the con-clusions and recommendations contained therein;

"2. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the peoplesof Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland to free-dom and independence;

"3. Once again invites the administering Powerto take urgent steps to implement fully General As-sembly resolutions 1514(XV), 1817(XVII) and 1954(XVIII) in conformity with the freely expressedwishes of the peoples of the three Territories;

"4. Renews its request that the administeringPower should take immediate steps to return to theindigenous inhabitants all the land taken from them,whatever the form of or pretext for such alienation;

"5. Requests the Special Committee to consider,in co-operation with the Secretary-General, whatmeasures are necessary for securing the territorialintegrity and sovereignty of Basutoland, Bechuanalandand Swaziland, and to report to the General Assemblyat its twenty-first session;

"6. Expresses its satisfaction to the Secretary-General for his efforts and endorses the recommen-dations contained in his report;

"7. Decides to establish a Fund for the EconomicDevelopment of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swazi-land, to be made up of voluntary contributionsand to be administered by the Secretary-General inclose consultation with the Governments of the threeTerritories and with the co-operatior. and assistanceof the Special Fund, the Technical Assistance Board,the Economic Commission for Africa and the special-ized agencies concerned;

"8. Considers that the efforts to provide economic,financial and technical assistance, through UnitedNations programmes of technical co-operation andthe specialized agencies, should continue in orderto remedy the deplorable economic and social situa-tion of the three Territories;

"9. Requests the Secretary-General to appointresident representatives in the three Territories, as


recommended in paragraph 22 of his report, and toreport to the General Assembly at its twenty-firstsession on the operation of the Fund established underparagraph 7 above."

OTHER DOCUMENTSS/6566. Letter of 21 July 1965 from Chairman of

Special Committee (transmitting to Security Coun-cil a resolution on question of Basutoland, Bechua-naland and Swaziland (A/AC.109/127) adopted

by Special Committee on 17 June 1965, meeting372).

S/6567. Letter of 21 July 1965 from Chairman ofSpecial Committee (transmitting to Security Coun-cil a resolution regarding Southern Rhodesia,Territories under Portuguese administration, SouthWest Africa and Basutoland, Bechuanaland andSwaziland (A/AC. 109/128/Rev.l) adopted bySpecial Committee on 18 June 1965, meeting373).

British Guiana

British Guiana, situated on the north-eastcoast of the South American continent, had apopulation in 1962 estimated at 600,000, ofwhom 289,790 were East Indians, 192,660 wereof African descent, 68,240 were of mixed de-scent, 23,000 were Amerindians, 12,150 wereEuropeans and 3,520 were Chinese

Elections under a system of proportional re-presentation were held in the territory on 7December 1964 for the 53 seats in the single-chamber Legislature, the House of Assembly.The People's Progressive Party (PPP) won 24seats, the People's National Congress (PNC)22, and the United Force (UF) 7. The Gov-ernment was formed from a coalition of thePNC and the UF. Forbes Burnham was namedPremier.


The question of British Guiana was consid-ered in September and October 1965 by theGeneral Assembly's 24-member Special Com-mittee on the Situation with regard to theImplementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countriesand Peoples.

The Special Committee heard one petitioner,Felix Cummings, representative of the People'sProgressive Party (PPP), who drew the Com-mittee's attention to the manner in which Brit-ish Guiana was being brought to independenceby the administering power. He also said, amongother things, that the United States was inter-fering in the internal affairs of the country. Hecharged that the present Government of Brit-ish Guiana had come to power illegally, wasincompetent and prodigal of the country's re-sources, endangering the future of the countryand arresting people arbitrarily. His party, he

said, demanded: the inclusion of the questionof proportional representation in the agendaof the November 1965 conference to be heldon the territory, as well as the holding of freshelections before a date was fixed for independ-ence; the removal of all foreign troops and ofall military bases; and the restructuring anddemocratization of governmental institutionsdealing with law and order. He particularlyemphasized that the correction of the presentracial imbalance within branches of the civilservice (such as the police and security forces)was essential to preserve national unity.

In October, the Sub-Committee of GoodOffices (established by the Special Committeein 1964) reported that it had been unable tovisit the territory to carry out its mission, owingto a refusal by the United Kingdom. The Sub-Committee nevertheless considered that theUnited Nations should continue its effortsto ensure that British Guiana accede to inde-pendence without delay, in an atmosphere ofharmony and peace. It recommended that theSpecial Committee should reaffirm its resolu-tion of 23 June 1964 and should authorize theSub-Committee to carry out its task.

(By its resolution of 23 June 1964, the Spe-cial Committee had, among other things, ex-pressed distress at the grave and tragic situa-tion prevailing in the territory and consideredthat the delay in the granting of independenceby the administering power was the main causefor the situation. It had also called on theUnited Kingdom to fix without delay the date forthe independence of British Guiana; appealedto political leaders to take immediate steps torestore peaceful conditions; requested the ad-ministering power to release all political prison-ers and detainees, to create conditions of peaceand tranquillity and end the state of emergency;


and called upon the administering power torefrain from taking action which would aggra-vate the situation.)12

The representative of the United Kingdomreserved his Government's position with regardto the Sub-Committee's conclusion and in par-ticular with regard to a reaffirmation of theresolution adopted by the Special Committeeon 23 June 1964 against which the UnitedKingdom had voted. The United States Govern-ment's position in this connexion was also re-served by its representative.

The Special Committee adopted the reportof the Sub-Committee, without objection, andit was then incorporated in the report of theSpecial Committee to the General Assembly.


At a plenary meeting of the General Assem-bly, on 6 October 1965, the Foreign Ministerof Venezuela repudiated the arbitration find-ings of 1899 and reiterated his country's claimto Guyana Esequiba which he stated was"Venezuelan territory occupied by a colonialpower and incorporated into a colony." Thiswas further elaborated in a statement made bythe representative of Venezuela in the Assem-bly's Fourth Committee on 7 December 1965.(Guyana Esequiba is a parcel of land withinthe boundaries of British Guiana of approxi-mately 50,000 square miles and extending toinclude the left bank of the Esequibo River.)

On 6 October, the Permanent Representa-tive of the United Kingdom wrote to the Sec-retary-General stating that his Governmenthad no doubt as to its sovereignty over the ter-ritory of British Guiana and he wished formallyto reserve the rights of his Government on thisquestion.

During the Fourth Committee's debate, Cubaregistered its concern with the situation in Brit-ish Guiana, charging that the administeringpower had ignored the resolutions of the UnitedNations.

Tunisia stated that the case of British Guianawas an illustration of United Kingdom inter-vention in territories it administered in orderto direct events towards a situation whichwould be favourable to it in the future.

India considered that British Guiana had, onone pretext or another, been denied freedomand independence for almost 15 years by theadministering power. There was no doubt that,with the full co-operation of the administeringpower, the Sub-Committee and Special Com-mittee would be able to play an importantrole in assisting the people of the territory toachieve freedom and independence. The Gen-eral Assembly, India added, should call uponthe United Kingdom to grant Independenceto British Guiana without further delay.

Pakistan said that for Asian and Africancountries the evolution of a multi-racial com-munity in British Guiana was a challengingpossibility. The representative of Yugoslaviabelieved that the cause of the difficulties inBritish Guiana was basically political, not racial,and thus required a political solution. The solu-tion found, however, was racial in character,and this had given rise to the present difficulties.

The petitioner, Felix Cummings, also ap-peared before the Fourth Committee.

The United Kingdom representative said hisGovernment had publicly expressed its regretthat one of the two main forces in British Guia-na, the People's Progressive Party, had not feltable to attend the constitutional conference onthat territory taking place in London at themoment. Many of the points made by thepetitioner would surely have been more ap-propriately and effectively made in London.Concerning detainees still in custody in theterritory, he wished to made it clear that theresponsibility for internal security rested withthe British Guiana Ministry and not with theUnited Kingdom Government. British Guianahad, moreover, enjoyed more stability over thepast year than for some time. A conference tofix an independence date was in progress; inter-vention from outside might have unfortunateconsequences and even increase racial and po-litical divisions. A comprehensive survey ofracial tensions had just been carried out bythe International Commission of Jurists, andthe British Guiana Government was now work-ing to give effect to the Commission's re-commendations.

12See Y.U.N., 1964, p. 420.


The outcome of the discussions was the adop-tion of a resolution (2071 (XX)) at a plenarymeeting of the Assembly on 16 December 1965.By this resolution, the Assembly: endorsed theconclusion and recommendations concerningBritish Guiana contained in the report of theSpecial Committee of Twenty-Four; reaffirmedthe inalienable rights of the people of theterritory to freedom and independence in ac-cordance with the provisions of the GeneralAssembly's resolution of 14 December 1960containing the Declaration on the ending ofcolonialism; requested the administering powerto end the state of emergency and to releaseall political prisoners and detainees so as toenable them to participate in the political lifeof the territory; appealed to the main politicalparties to resolve existing differences so as toenable the territory to achieve independencein an atmosphere of peace and unity; and notedthe announcement of the administering powerthat British Guiana would attain independenceon 26 May 1966 and requested the administer-ing power not to take any action which mightdelay independence. (For full text of resolution,See DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The Assembly approved this text by a roll-call vote of 87 to 0, with 19 abstentions. It didso on the recommendation of the Fourth Com-mittee, where it was approved on 10 December1965 on the proposal of Algeria, Ceylon, theDemocratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia,Ghana, Guinea, India, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Li-beria, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, SaudiArabia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Togo, theUnited Arab Republic, the United Republic

of Tanzania, Yugoslavia and Zambia.The vote in the Fourth Committee on the

resolution as a whole followed separate voteson: (a) the paragraph endorsing the recom-mendations of the Special Committee of Twenty-Four (approved by 74 votes to 0, with 17 absten-tions) and (b) the paragraph requesting theadministering power to end the state of emer-gency and to release all political prisoners anddetainees (approved by 67 votes to 0, with 25abstentions).

Many of the Members abstaining in the votewere Latin American States which, in boththe Fourth Committee and at the plenary de-bates, had expressed the hope that the draftresolution would have made some referenceto the existence of the Venezuelan territorialclaim, although, they added, they were notmaking their support of independence for Brit-ish Guiana conditional upon the achievementof a solution to such a claim.

In this connexion, the General Assembly de-cided, on 16 December 1965, without objection,to take note of a statement by the Chairmanof the Fourth Committee which itself notedthe discussions taking place between the Govern-ments concerned with the territorial claim (theUnited Kingdom, Venezuela and British Guia-na) and stated that these discussions were acontinuation of those agreed upon in 1962 andwere in accordance with the statement of theChairman of the Special Political Committeereporting that direct discussions had been ar-ranged, which had been noted by the Assemblyon 11 December 1962.


Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of In-dependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,meetings 386, 389.


Fourth Committee, meetings 1517, 1546, 1549-1554,1556-1560, 1576-1578, 1583, 1594.

Plenary Meetings 1350, 1398.

A/5800/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee to 19thAssembly session, Chapter VII.

A/6000/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee to 20thAssembly session, Chapter IX.

A/6034. Letter of 6 October 1965 from UnitedKingdom.

A/C.4/655. Request for hearing.A/C.4/661. Statement by representative of Venezuela

on 7 December 1965, meeting 1577.A/C.4/664. Statement by Chairman of Fourth Com-

mittee on 20 December 1965, meeting 1594.A/C.4/L.809 and Add.l. Algeria, Ceylon, Democratic

Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea,India, Iran, Iraq, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Nepal,Niger, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan,Syria, Togo, United Arab Republic, United Re-public of Tanzania, Yugoslavia: draft resolution.

A/C.4/L.809/Rev.l and Add.l, 2. Algeria, Ceylon,


Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana,Guinea, India, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Liberia, Mali,Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone,Sudan, Syria, Togo, United Arab Republic, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia, Zambia: reviseddraft resolution, adopted by Fourth Committee on10 December 1965, meeting 1583, by roll-call voteof 80 to 0, with 18 abstentions as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Austria, Belgium,Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, ByelorussianSSR, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chad, Chile,China, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republicof the Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia,Dahomey, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, Ghana,Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Ire-land, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan,Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar,Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia,Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Ni-ger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland,Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, SierraLeone, Somalia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand,Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic,United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uru-guay, Yemen, Yugoslavia.Against: None.Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Colombia, CostaRica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France,Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Para-guay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom,United States, Venezuela.

Report of Fourth Committee, draft resolution VII.A/6205. Letter of 16 December 1965 from United

Kingdom.RESOLUTION 2071 (xx), as recommended by Fourth

Committee, A/6160, adopted by Assembly on 16December 1965, meeting 1398, by roll-call voteof 87 to 0, with 19 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Austria, Belgium,Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR,Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic,Ceylon, Chile, China, Congo (Brazzaville), Demo-cratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Czechoslova-kia, Dahomey, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fin-land, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Hungary,Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy,Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Ku-wait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Mada-gascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldive Islands, Mali,Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal,Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Nor-

way, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Romania,Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, So-malia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tri-nidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic,Upper Volta, Uruguay, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: None.Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Colombia, CostaRica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France,Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Para-guay, Peru, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, UnitedKingdom, United States, Venezuela..


the Special Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples relating to British Guiana,

"Recalling its resolutions 1514(XV) of 14 De-cember 1960, 1654(XVI) of 27 November 1961,1810(XVII) of 17 December 1952 and 1955(XVIII) and 1956(XVIII) of 11 December 1963,

"Noting that British Guiana will achieve independ-ence on 26 May 1966,

"Desirous of ensuring that British Guiana achievesindependence under the most favourable conditions,

"1. Approves the chapters of the reports of theSpecial Committee on the Situation with regard tothe Implementation of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples relating to British Guiana, and endorses theconclusions and recommendations contained therein;

"2. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peopleof British Guiana to freedom and independence inaccordance with the provisions of General Assemblyresolution 1514(XV);

"3. Requests the administering Power to end thestate of emergency and to release all political pris-oners and detainees so as to enable them to par-ticipate in the political life of the Territory;

"4. Appeals to the main political parties to re-solve existing differences so as to enable the Territoryto achieve independence in an atmosphere of peaceand unity;

"5. Notes the announcement by the Governmentof the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North-ern Ireland that British Guiana will attain independ-ence on 26 May 1966 and requests the administer-ing Power not to take any action which might delaythe independence of the Territory."

Cook IslandsThe Cook Islands are widely scattered through-out an area of some 850,000 square miles ofocean in the South Pacific. They have a totalland area of approximately 93 square miles.Thirteen are inhabited, with a population in1964 estimated to total 19,944

In 1901, the Cook Islands were formally in-cluded within the boundaries of New Zealand.Since 1915, they have been administered underthe provisions of the Cook Islands Act, 1915,as amended. This provided for the appointmentby the Governor-General of a Resident Com-


missioner of the Cook Islands, who was charged,subject to the control of the Minister of IslandTerritories, with the administration of the exec-utive government of the islands.

At its nineteenth session, by resolution 2005(XIX) of 18 February 1965,13 the General As-sembly had authorized the Secretary-General toappoint a United Nations representative tosupervise the elections to be held in the territory,to observe the proceedings concerning the draftconstitution in the Legislative Assembly and toreport to the General Assembly's 24-memberSpecial Committee on the Situation with regardto the Declaration on the Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples andto the General Assembly.

Accordingly, the Secretary-General appointedOmar A. H. Adeel as United Nations Represent-ative. The election were held on 21 April 1965and the discussions in the Legislative Assemblyon the draft constitution took place between10 and 19 May 1965. The United Nations Re-presentative, accompanied by observers and staff,arrived in the Cook Islands on 6 April 1965.

REPORT OF THE UNITEDNATIONS REPRESENTATIVE

In his report to the Secretary-General dated30 June 1965, the United Nations Represent-ative stated that the administrative and physicalarrangements concerning the conduct of theelections were in accordance with the regula-tions, and the impartiality of the electoral of-ficials was impeccable. He believed that therewas, in a fairly large section of the population,a fair degree of awareness of the significanceof the elections. During the time he was in theterritory he was satisfied that the people wereable to exercise their rights prior to and duringpolling in complete freedom. The Administra-tion's precautions for the security of the ballotpapers provided a foolproof safeguard, and hewas satisfied that a correct count of the votesand an accurate report of the results had beenmade. He also reported that, at its first meeting,the Cook Islands legislature had reaffirmed itsacceptance of the principle of full internal self-government, as outlined in the draft constitu-tion and had requested certain amendments.

In a letter dated 13 August to the Secretary-General, the Permanent Representative of New

Zealand stated that the amendments requestedby the Cook Islands legislature had been enactedby the New Zealand Parliament. The amendeddraft constitution had been approved by theCook Islands legislature and the new Constitu-tion providing for a self-governing Cook Islandsin free association with New Zealand had comeinto force on 4 August 1965.


Following its consideration of the report ofthe United Nations Representative, the SpecialCommittee of Twenty-Four, on 30 August 1965,adopted a resolution by 20 votes to 0, with 3abstentions, taking note of the United NationsRepresentative's report and the statements madeto the Special Committee by the Premier of theCook Islands and by the representative of NewZealand with regard to the future status ofthe Cook Islands.


The report of the United Nations Represent-ative and the report of the Special Committeeof Twenty-Four concerning the Cook Islandswere considered later in the year at the GeneralAssembly's twentieth session, mostly in the As-sembly's Fourth Committee. China, Denmark,Ireland, Iraq, Pakistan, the Philippines andUruguay, among others, expressed the opinionthat with the coming into force of the newConstitution in the Cook Islands, the administer-ing power had carried out its obligations underthe General Assembly's Declaration of 14 De-cember 1960 on the Granting of Independenceto Colonial Countries and Peoples (containedin resolution 1514(XV)).14

The representative of Ceylon considered thatthe new Constitution could serve as a modelfor small territories which had not achievedself-government.

A number of Members, including China,noted that this was the first time that the UnitedNations had played an active role in super-vising elections in a non-self-governing territory,

See Y.U.N., 1964, pp. 427-28, for text of resolu-tion 2005 (XIX).

14 See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50, for text of resolu-tion 1514(XV).

13


and congratulated the New Zealand Govern-ment on having invited the United Nations todo so. Jamaica considered that the role of theUnited Nations in the Cook Islands and thedecision of its people regarding their futurewould be an inspiration for the people of othersmall non-self-governing territories.

The USSR representative said that the Con-stitution did not grant complete independenceto the territory and that the administering powerhad not fulfilled the provisions of the Assem-bly's Declaration of 14 December 1960 on thegranting of independence, particularly those con-tained in that Declaration which pertained tothe transfer of all powers to the people of theterritories.15 The United Nations could notbe satisfied with playing a passive role and en-dorsing the decisions of the administering power.It should seek, in the spirit of the Charter andthe Assembly's Declaration of 14 December1960, to create conditions in the Cook Islandswhich would enable the population to decidefreely on the territory's future form of govern-ment.

Mali considered that, in deciding their future,a referendum rather than an election wouldhave been preferable for the people of the terri-tory. Yugoslavia agreed, declaring that, beforereleasing an administering power from its obliga-tions under the Charter in respect of a giventerritory, the United Nations should take ade-quate steps to ascertain the real wishes of thepopulation concerning their status.

Liberia said that the people of the territoryhad made a choice regarding their future andthat in any event both Governments had agreedthat the people could decide at any time tochange their status, in accordance with theGeneral Assembly's resolution of 14 December1960 on granting independence.

A draft resolution was sponsored in theFourth Committee by the Democratic Republicof the Congo, Guinea, Mauritania, Morocco,Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines,Rwanda, Togo and Zambia. By this, the As-sembly, among other things, would: (1) notethat the Constitution of the Cook Islands cameinto force on 4 August 1965, "from which datethe Cook Islanders have had control of their in-ternal affairs and of their future"; and (2)reaffirm the responsibility of the United Nations

(under the General Assembly resolution of 14December 1960 containing the Declaration ongranting independence) to assist the people ofthe Cook Islands in the eventual achievementof full independence, if they so wished, at afuture date.

An amendment was submitted by Ghana todelete the words "from which date the CookIslands have had control of their internal affairsand of their future" from the operative para-graph whereby the Assembly would note thatthe Constitution of the Cook Islands came intoforce on 4 August 1965.

Introducing the amendment, the representa-tive of Ghana said that a study of the Constitu-tion revealed that the Cook Islands did nothave full control of their internal affairs; hereferred in particular to the powers retainedby New Zealand through the High Commis-sioner.

The representative of New Zealand deniedthis assertion, stating that it was based on amisinterpretation of the High Commissioner'spowers. He added that the Cook Islanders werefree to fill this post from among themselves,and once a Polynesian was chosen as HighCommissioner all the objections now raisedwould disappear.

The Ghana amendment was rejected by aroll-call vote of 28 in favour, to 29 against,with 43 abstentions.

Liberia also submitted amendments to the12-power draft resolution. By these amendments,the General Assembly would: (1) express itsappreciation of the co-operation extended tothe United Nations by the New Zealand Gov-ernment in the study of the question of theCook Islands; (2) consider that since the CookIslands had attained full internal self-govern-ment, the transmission of information in respectof the Cook Islands under Article 73e of the

15 Paragraph 5 of the Declaration on the granting of

independence (contained in resolution 1514(XV))reads: "Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trustand Non-Self Governing Territories or all other terri-tories which have not yet attained independence, totransfer all power to the peoples of those territories,without any conditions or reservations, in accordancewith their freely expressed will and desire, withoutany distinction as to race, creed or colour, in orderto enable them to enjoy complete independence andfreedom."


Charter was no longer necessary; and (3) ex-press the hope that the United Nations Develop-ment Programme and the specialized agencieswould endeavour to contribute in every waypossible to the development and strengtheningof the economy of the Cook Islands. Theseamendments were all adopted by the FourthCommittee.

The draft text as a whole, as amended, wasapproved by the Fourth Committee on 8 De-cember 1965 by a roll-call vote of 76 to 0, with24 abstentions. On 16 December it was ap-proved at a plenary meeting of the Assemblyby a roll-call vote of 78 to 0, with 29 absten-tions, as resolution 2064(XX).

By this resolution, the Assembly, among otherthings, noted that the Constitution of the CookIslands came into force on 4 August 1965, fromwhich date the Cook Islanders had had controlof their internal affairs and of their future;considered that since the Cook Islands hadattained full internal self-government, the trans-mission of information in respect of the CookIslands under Article 73e of the Charter of theUnited Nations was no longer necessary; re-affirmed the responsibility of the United Nationsunder the General Assembly's resolution (1514(XV)) of 14 December I96016 on the grantingof independence to assist the people of theCook Islands in the eventual achievement offull independence, if they so wished, at a futuredate; and expressed the hope that the UnitedNations Development Programme and the spe-cialized agencies would endeavour to contributein every way possible to the development and

strengthening of the economy of the CookIslands. (For full text, see DOCUMENTARY RE-FERENCES below.)

The votes on the resolution as a whole inboth the Fourth Committee and the plenarymeeting of the Assembly took place after voteson separate paragraphs.

Thus, both the Fourth Committee and theAssembly approved by roll-call votes the operat-ive paragraph whereby the Assembly noted thatthe Constitution of the Cook Islands came intoforce on 4 August 1965, from which date theCook Islanders had had "control over theirinternal affairs and of their future." TheFourth Committee approved this by 65 votesto 16, with 18 abstentions, and the Assemblyagreed to it by 77 votes to 16, with 14 absten-tions.

The Fourth Committee also approved, bya roll-call vote of 86 votes to 4, with 6 absten-tions, the operative paragraph reaffirming theresponsibility of the United Nations to assistthe people of the Cook Islands in the eventualachievement of full independence, if they sowished, at a future date.

There was no separate vote on this para-graph in the plenary meeting, but there wasa separate vote on that paragraph stating thatas the Cook Islands had attained full internalself-government, the transmission of informa-tion in respect of the Cook Islands under Article73e of the United Nations Charter was no longernecessary. The Assembly agreed to this by aroll-call vote of 66 to 19, with 21 abstentions.

See footnote 14.


Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-dependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,meetings 375, 376, 378-382.


Fourth Committee meetings 1517, 1560-1563, 1579-1581.



A/5961. Letter of 13 August 1965 from New Zea-land.

A/5962 and Corr.1. Report of United NationsRepresentative for Supervision of Elections inCook Islands.


A/C.4/L.662 and Corr.1. Statement by representa-tive of Ghana on 8 December 1965, meeting1579.

A/C.4/L.663. Statement by representative of NewZealand on 8 December 1965, meeting 1579.

A/C.4/L.811. Algeria, Democratic Republic of Con-go, Guinea, Liberia, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger,Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Togo:draft resolution.

A/C.4/L.811/Rev.l, Rev.l/Corr.l and Rev.l/Add.l.Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Maurita-nia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan,Philippines, Rwanda, Togo, Zambia: draft resolu-tion, as amended, adopted by Fourth Committeeon 8 December 1965, meeting 1580, by roll-call

16


vote of 76 to 0, with 24 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Bel-gium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cameroon, Canada,Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chad, Chile,China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo,Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dahomey, Denmark, Ecuador,El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, Guatema-la, Guinea, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland,Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jor-dan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar,Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Ne-pal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger,Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philip-pines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, So-malia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Turkey,United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tan-zania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen,Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: None.Abstaining: Algeria, Australia, Bulgaria, Byelorus-sian SSR, Congo (Brazzaville), Cuba, Czecho-slovakia, France, Ghana, Hungary, Mongolia,Poland, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, South Africa,Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR,USSR, United Kingdom, Unites States.

A/C.4/L.815. Ghana: amendment to 12-power draftresolution, A/C.4/L.811/Rev.l.

A/C.4/L.816. Liberia: amendments to 12-power draftresolution, A/C.4/L.811/Rev.l.

A/6154. Report of Fourth Committee.RESOLUTION 2064(xx), as recommended by Fourth

Committee, A/6154, adopted by Assembly on 16December 1965, meeting 1398, by roll-call vote of78 to 0, with 29 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Bel-gium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon,Canada, Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chile,China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dahomey, Denmark,Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fin-land, Gabon, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti,Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland,Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg,Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldive Islands,Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nether-lands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria,Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philip-pines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Spain,Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, United Arab Re-public, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugo-slavia, Zambia.Against: None.Abstaining: Algeria. Australia, Bulgaria, Byelorus-sian SSR, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Re-public of the Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France,Ghana, Hungary, Kenya, Mongolia, Poland, Por-tugal, Romania, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa,Sudan, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom,United States, Yemen.

"The General Assembly,"Recalling its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December

1960,"Recalling its resolution 2005 (XIX) of 18 February

1965, authorizing the Secretary-Genera, to appoint aUnited Nations representative to supervise the elec-tions to be held in the Cook Islands under New Zea-land administration and to observe the proceedingsconcerning the Constitution in the newly electedLegislative Assembly,

"Having examined the chapters of the reports ofthe Special Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples relating to the Cooks Islands, including thestatements made in the Special Committee by thePremier of the Cook Islands,

"Having considered the report of the United Na-tions Representative for the Supervision of the Elec-tions in the Cook Islands and the information onsubsequent developments,

"Having heard the statements made by the UnitedNations Representative for the Supervision of theElections in the Cook Islands and the representativeof New Zealand,

"Noting that, under the Constitution which cameinto force on 4 August 1965, the people of theCooks Islands have reserved their right to move toa status of complete independence,

"1. Approves the chapters of the reports of theSpecial Committee on the Situation with regard tothe Implementation of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples relating to the Cook Islands;

"2. Notes the findings and conclusions of theUnited Nations Representative for the Supervisionof the Elections in the Cook Islands and expresses itshigh appreciation to the Representative and his staff;

"3. Expresses its appreciation of the co-operationextended to the United Nations by the Governmentof New Zealand in the study of the question of theCook Islands;

"4. Notes that the Constitution of the CookIslands came into force on 4 August 1965, fromwhich date the people of the Cook Islands havehad control of their internal affairs and of theirfuture;

"5. Considers that since the Cook Islands haveattained full internal self-government, the transmis-sion of information in respect of the Cook Islandsunder Article 73 of the Charter of the United Na-tions is no longer necessary;

"6. Reaffirms the responsibility of the UnitedNations, under General Assembly resolution 1514(XV), to assist the people of the Cook Islands inthe eventual achievement of full independence, ifthey so wish, at a future date;

"7. Expresses the hope that the United NationsDevelopment Programme and the specialized agen-cies will endeavour to contribute in every way pos-sible to the development and strengthening of theeconomy of the Cook Islands."


Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea, administered by Spain, con-sists of Rio Muni, on the west coast of theAfrican continent, and the islands of FernandoPoo and Annobon, in the Gulf of Guinea. Ac-cording to a 1960 census, the total populationof the territory of Equatorial Guinea numbered246,000.

Following a referendum held in December1963, Rio Muni and the islands of FernandoPoo and Annobon were joined to form Equator-ial Guinea under a new constitution by whichthey ceased to be Spanish provinces and weregranted their own legislative and executive in-stitutions. Spain was henceforth represented inthe territory by a High Commissioner respon-sible for external relations and defence.

The situation in Equatorial Guinea was con-sidered in November and December 1965 duringthe twentieth session of the General Assembly—mostly in the Assembly's Fourth Committee—on the basis of reports of the Assembly'sSpecial Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration onthe Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples.

During its consideration of the situation inthe territory, the Fourth Committee heard asa petitioner Atanasie Ndong Niyone, represent-ing the Mouvement national de liberation dela Guinee equatoriale (MNLGE). The Com-mittee was also addressed by Bonifacio OndoEdu, President of the Governing Council ofthe territory, who spoke as a member of theSpanish delegation.

Mr. Ondo Edu stated that the Governmentof Spain had made it clear that EquatorialGuinea was free to choose its own future atany time, including complete independence, andthat his Government felt it was desirable forthe country to pass through a period of prepara-tion leading to complete independence.

The representative of Gabon and Mauritaniafelt that the leaders and the people of theterritory were working with determinationtowards the goal of independence.

The representatives of Mali and the Philip-pines considered that the birth of the autonom-ous State of Equatorial Guinea constituted apositive factor. The representatives of Mali,

Nigeria and Cameroon noted that Spain stillretained the attributes of sovereignty in theterritory and that the competence of the terri-tory's authorities was restricted. They consideredthat immediate measures towards the full im-plementation of the Assembly's resolution 1514(XV) of 16 December I96017 (containing theDeclaration on granting independence) shouldbe taken by Spain and that the people of theterritory should be able to determine their futurein accordance with democratic processes.

A draft resolution was introduced by 22Members, whereby the General Assembly, amongother things, would: (1) reaffirm the inalien-able right of the people of Equatorial Guineato self-determination and independence; (2)request the administering power to set theearliest possible date for independence afterconsulting the people on the basis of universalsuffrage under the supervision of the UnitedNations; and (3) invite the Special Committeeto follow the progress of the implementationof this resolution and to report thereon to theGeneral Assembly's twenty-first session (in1966).

The following were the 22 sponsors of thisproposal: Algeria, Cameroon, Ceylon, theCongo (Brazzaville), Dahomey, Ghana, Guinea,the Ivory Coast. Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Niger,Nigeria. Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria,Togo, Tunisia, the United Arab Republic, theUnited Republic of Tanzania, and Zambia.

The representative of Spain observed thatthe process which would lead to the independ-ence of Equatorial Guinea was already veryadvanced, and the people of the territory alreadyheld their future in their own hands. It wasimplicit in the principle of self-determinationthat the people of the territory should them-selves decide which moment should be chosen.He reserved his delegation's position regardingthe scope and significance of the draft resolu-tion.

Several delegations expressed reservationsabout the paragraph in the 22-power text onsetting the earliest possible date for independ-ence. Argentina did not think it accorded with

17

See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50.


the actual situation in the territory or withthe powers at present held by the administeringpower. Colombia, El Salvador, Gabon, Guate-mala, the United States and Venezuela, amongothers, felt that the people of Equatorial Guineathemselves should set the date for independence.The United Kingdom pointed out that thebasis of any popular consultation and any as-sociation of the United Nations with such con-sultation were matters to be dealt with by theadministering power in question.

On 26 November 1965, the Fourth Com-mittee approved the 22-power draft resolution

by 90 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions, the para-graph on setting the earliest possible date forindependence being approved by 77 votes to0, with 16 abstentions.

On 16 December 1965, the text was approvedat a plenary meeting of the Assembly by 103votes to 0, with 2 abstentions, as resolution2067 (XX). This decision followed a roll-callvote on the paragraph on setting an early datefor independence, which was approved by 77votes to 4, with 20 abstentions. (For full textof resolution, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCESbelow.)



Fourth Committee, meetings 1549-1552, 1556-1559,1566, 1570.


A/5800/Rev.l. Report to 19th Assembly session ofSpecial Committee on Situation with regard toImplementation of Declaration on Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,Chapter IX.

A/6000/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee to 20thAssembly session, Chapter X.

A/C.4/656. Statement by Bonifacio Ondo Edu, Presi-dent of Governing Council of Equatorial Guinea,on 8 November 1965, meeting 1550.

A/C.4/657. Request for hearing.A/C.4/659. Statement by Atanasie Ndong Niyone,

Secretary-General of MNLGE-FRENAPO on 16November 1965, meeting 1557.

A/C.4/L.807 and Add. 1-3. Algeria, Cameroon, Cey-lon, Congo (Brazzaville), Dahomey, Ghana, Gui-nea, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Niger,Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, To-go, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, United Re-public of Tanzania, Zambia: draft resolution,adopted by Fourth Committee on 26 November1965, meeting 1570 by 90 votes to 0, with 3 absten-tions.

A/6160. Report of Fourth Committee, draft resolu-tion III.

RESOLUTION 2067(xx), as recommended by FourthCommittee, A/6160, adopted by Assembly on 16December 1965, meetings 1398 by 103 votes to 0,with 2 abstentions.

"The General Assembly,"Having examined the situation in the Territories

of Fernando Poo and Rio Muni,"Having heard the statements of the administering

Power and the petitioners,"Recalling its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 De-

cember 1960 containing the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples,

"Taking particularly into account the conclusionsand recommendations of the Special Committee onthe Situation with regard to the Implementation ofthe Declaration on the Granting of Independenceto Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to theaforesaid Territories,

"Noting that the Territories of Fernando Foo andRio Muni have been merged and named EquatorialGuinea,

"1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peopleof Equatorial Guinea to self-determination and inde-pendence;

"2. Requests the administering Power to set theearliest possible date for independence after con-sulting the people on the basis of universal suffrageunder the supervision of the United Nations;

"3. Invites the Special Committee on the Situa-tion with regard to the Implementation of the Declar-ation on the Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples to follow the progress of theimplementation of the present resolution and toreport thereon to the General Assembly at its twenty-first session."

Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

The Falkland Islands (Malvinas), adminis-tered by the United Kingdom, are situated inthe South Atlantic, some 480 miles off CapeHorn. The population, almost exclusively ofBritish origin, numbers slightly over 2,000.

The question of the Falkland Islands (Mal-vinas) was considered by the General Assemblyat its twentieth session at meetings held inNovember and December 1965, on the basisof reports of the Assembly's 24-member Special


Committee on the Situation with regard to theImplementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countriesand Peoples. Discussions at that Assembly ses-sion took place mainly in the Assembly's FourthCommittee.

The representative of Argentina said thatthe Malvinas, which had formed a natural partof the Spanish colonial establishments, hadcome under the dominion of Argentina in 1810but had been occupied by the United Kingdomin 1833. The Malvinas should be decolonized,in accordance with the Assembly's resolution1514(XV) of 14 December 1960 (containingthe Declaration on the granting of independ-ence).18 The only course of action, he stated,was to return them to Argentina, in compliancewith the provisions of that resolution whichaffirmed the right of all peoples to the integrityof their national territory. In 1964, he added,the Special Committee had recommended nego-tiations with a view to finding a solution. Ac-cordingly, on 21 September 1965, the Govern-ment of Argentina had invited the United King-dom Government to enter into negotiations. Ifthe United Kingdom agreed to discuss theproblem with a sincere desire to find a solu-tion, there could be no difficulty in finding aformula which would guarantee the rights andaspirations of the inhabitants of the territory.

The United Kingdom representative did notaccept the arguments of the representative ofArgentina, and stated that his government hadno doubts as to its sovereignty over the territory.The question of disrupting Argentina's terri-torial integrity therefore did not arise. Theimportant issue was the interests and wishesof the inhabitants, who were genuine, perma-nent inhabitants having no other home butthe islands, and who did not wish to severtheir connexions with the United Kingdom.No provision of the Assembly's resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960 could be inter-preted as denying the principle of self-deter-mination to the inhabitants of territories whichwere the subject of a territorial claim by anothercountry. He informed the Fourth Committeethat his Government had replied to the Argen-tine Government, declaring its willingness toenter into discussions with the Argentine Gov-ernment, and asking that topics for such discus-

sions should be suggested, bearing in mind theUnited Kingdom's reservations concerning itssovereignty over the Falkland Islands and theneed to take into account the wishes and in-terests of the people of the islands.

Several Members of the Fourth Committeewho participated in the discussion felt that thequestion should be resolved through negotiationsbetween Argentina and the United Kingdom.This, for instance, was the view expressed byBulgaria, Israel, Mali, Morocco, the UnitedArab Republic and others.

To Italy, there appeared to be a conflictbetween the principles set out in the UnitedNations Charter and those set out in Assemblyresolution 1514(XV), namely, the principleof territorial integrity and the principle of self-determination. The origin of the inhabitantsof the islands and the fluctuations of the popu-lation, he added, gave rise to serious doubtsabout the possibility of strict application in thiscase of the principle of self-determination.

Turkey felt that the resolution on decoloniza-tion could only be implemented once the disputeover sovereignty had been settled through nego-tiations.

Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay andVenezuela supported the position of Argentinaand considered that the question should beresolved in accordance with the provisions ofAssembly resolution 1514(XV) concerning theright of all peoples to their territorial integrity.

On 18 November 1960, the Fourth Committeeapproved a draft resolution on the matter whichwas later adopted at a plenary meeting of theAssembly on 16 December as resolution 2065(XV).

By this text, the Assembly, considering thatthe Assembly's resolution 1514(XV) wasprompted by the aim of ending colonialismeverywhere in all its forms, "one of which coversthe case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),"noted the existence of a dispute between theGovernments of Argentina and of the UnitedKingdom concerning sovereignty over the Falk-land Islands (Malvinas). It invited the twoGovernments to proceed without further delaywith the negotiations recommended by the

18

See Y.U.N., I960, pp. 49-50, text of resolution1514(XV).


Special Committee with a view to finding apeaceful solution to the problem, bearing inmind the provisions and objectives of the UnitedNations Charter and of resolution 1514 (XV)and the interests of the population of the islands.(For full text, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCESbelow.)

The resolution to this effect was sponsoredin the Fourth Committee by Bolivia, Chile,

Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic,Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Hon-duras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay andVenezuela.

The Fourth Committee approved it by aroll-call vote of 87 to 0, with 13 abstentions.The vote for it in the plenary meeting of theAssembly on 16 December, by roll call, was94 to 0, with 14 abstentions.



Fourth Committee, meetings 1552-1554, 1556-1560.Plenary meetings 1337, 1338

of Special Committee on Situation with regardto Implementation of Declaration on Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,Chapter XXIII.

A/6000/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee to 20thAssembly session, Chapter XXII.

A/6020. Letter of 27 September 1965 from UnitedKingdom.

A/C.4/L.802. Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gua-temala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Pe-ru, Uruguay, Venezuela: draft resolution, adoptedby Fourth Committee on 18 November 1965, meet-ing 1560, by roll-call vote of 87 to 0, with 13abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Aus-tria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma,Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Ceylon, Chad, Chile,China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo,Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Daho-mey, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Gui-nea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq,Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan,Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Mali,Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal,Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Pe-ru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, SaudiArabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain,Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and To-bago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR,USSR, United Arab Republic, United Republic ofTanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Ye-men, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: None.Abstaining: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland,France, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Por-tugal, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom,United States.

A/6160. Report of Fourth Committee, draft reso-lution I.

RESOLUTION 2065(xx) as recommended by FourthCommittee, A/6160, adopted by Assembly on 16

December 1965, meeting 1398, by roll-call vote of94 to 0, with 14 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Aus-tria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma,Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, CentralAfrican Republic, Ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia,Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of theCongo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Daho-mey, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia,Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Hai-ti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Ire-land, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan,Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya,Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mal-dive Islands, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia,Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pa-kistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Po-land, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Thai-land, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tur-key, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United ArabRepublic, United Republic of Tanzania, UpperVolta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia,Zambia.Against: None.Abstaining: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland,France, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nor-way, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, United King-dom, United States.

"The General Assembly,"Having examined the question of the Falkland

Islands (Malvinas),"Taking into account the chapters of the reports

of the Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Declarationon the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands(Malvinas), and in particular the conclusions andrecommendations adopted by the Committee withreference to that Territory,

"Considering that its resolution 1514(XV) of 14December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aimof bringing to an end everywhere colonialism inall its forms, one of which covers the case of theFalkland Islands (Malvinas),

"Noting the existence of a dispute between theGovernments of Argentina and the United Kingdom

A/5800/Rev.l. Report to 19th Assembly session


of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerningsovereignty over the said Islands,

"1. Invites the Governments of Argentina andthe United Kingdom of Great Britain and NorthernIreland to proceed without delay with the negotia-tions recommended by the Special Committee on theSituation with regard to the Implementation of theDeclaration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples with a view to find-

ing a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing inmind the provisions and objectives of the Charterof the United Nations and of General Assembly reso-lution 1514(XV) and the interests of the populationof the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);

"2. Requests the two Governments to report tothe Special Committee and to the General Assemblyat its twenty-first session on the results of the nego-tiations."

FijiFiji, a group of islands in the central South Pa-cific administered by the United Kingdom, hasa population of 456,390, consisting of 189,169Fijians, 228,176 persons of Indian origin and39,045 others. It has a Legislative Council con-sisting of a majority of nominated members.The elected members are elected by the threecommunities.

The situation in Fiji was considered at theGeneral Assembly's twentieth session in Novem-ber and December 1965 on the basis of reportsby the Assembly's 24-member Special Committeeon the Situation with regard to the Implementa-tion of the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples.

Discussion at the Assembly's twentieth sessiontook place mainly in the Assembly's FourthCommittee.

The representative of the United Kingdominformed the Fourth Committee that, followinga constitutional conference in August 1965,agreement had been reached on an electedmajority in the Legislative Council and theintroduction of universal adult suffrage. Thecommunal rolls would be maintained, but asystem of cross-voting would be introduced.More responsibility would be given to electedmembers in the Executive Council. Proposalsby the Fijian Indian representatives for a com-mon roll and for the immediate granting offull internal self-government, he added, werenot acceptable to some of the other representa-tives at the conference. The United KingdomGovernment hoped that the new system wouldencourage political co-operation and make itpossible to move towards a national rather thana communal attitude in the future.

The representative of India, however, main-tained that the constitutional conference hadfailed to move in the direction of the goals of

the Declaration. Instead of the universally ac-cepted system of "one man, one vote," thepresent arrangement in Fiji would give oneman one vote in the case of some but, in thecase of others, it would give one man six oreight votes. The administering power had in-stituted a complicated system of cross-voting,with equal division of seats among unequalcommunities, with a view to protecting theinterests of the European minority. The newLegislative Council would not be a fully demo-cratic body and would have little effectivepower. He deprecated the administering power'spolicy of separate electorates which, he said,retarded progress towards integrating the peo-ples of the Territory.

Twenty-seven Members introduced a draftresolution whereby the Assembly, consideringthat the constitutional changes contemplatedby the administering power would foment sepa-ratist tendencies and stand in the way of thepolitical, economic and social integration ofthe people as a whole, would, among otherthings: (1) reaffirm the inalienable right ofthe people of Fiji to freedom and independencein conformity with the provisions of the Declara-tion; and (2) request the administering powerto take, as a matter of urgency, measures torepeal all discriminatory laws and to establishan unqualified system of democratic representa-tion based on the principle of "one man, onevote."

The 27 Members sponsoring the proposal tothis effect were: Algeria, Ceylon, Cyprus, Ethio-pia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Iran, Iraq, Kenya,Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria,the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone,Somalia, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, the United ArabRepublic, the United Republic of Tanzania,Upper Volta, Yugoslavia and Zambia.

Ceylon considered that the present constitu-


tion of Fiji should be amended to discourageseparatist tendencies and encourage the awaken-ing of a national consciousness. The presentsystem of voting, it believed, could only ac-centuate rather than eliminate the politicaldifferences between different communities ofFiji and therefore it should be replaced by asystem based on universal adult suffrage.

The representative of Liberia stated that thesponsors of the draft resolution had taken noteof positive and negative aspects of the situationin Fiji. They found it difficult to believe thatthe existence of separatist tendencies amongthe various ethnic groups of the population ofthe territoiy was impeding the developmentof Fiji towards self-government and independ-ence. For this reason, the draft resolution re-quested the administering power, for the sakeof territorial unity, to repeal all discriminatorylaws, as it had done in other territories whichhad now attained independence.

The representative of the United Kingdomcould not agree that the constitutional changescontemplated would introduce divisions intopolitical life in the territory. The constitutionalchanges which were to be introduced weredesigned to help bring the communities in theterritory together. It was perverse to suggestthat they would foment separatist tendencies.

He pointed out that such discriminatory lawsas existed were designed to allay the mutualfears among the various communities and werenecessary until the growth of national unityand co-operation made that protection un-necessary. The demand for the immediate aboli-tion of all communal voting, he added, wastantamount to asking for a political revolutionwhich would intensify racial bitterness andsuspicions. The administering power was notprepared to do what the sponsors of the draftresolution wanted in that regard, and he wouldtherefore vote against the draft resolution.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand, whileconcurring with the intentions of the sponsorsof the 27-power proposal, could not supporttheir draft resolution because it did not takeinto account the realities of the situation inFiji and because of the need to avoid endanger-ing the delicate basis that existed for co-opera-tion between the ethnic groups.

On 26 November 1965, the Fourth Committeeapproved the draft resolution by a roll-callvote of 80 to 3, with 12 abstentions.

On 16 December 1965, the text was adoptedat a plenary meeting of the General Assemblyas resolution 2068 (XX), by 90 votes to 3, with14 abstentions. (For full text, see DOCUMENTARYREFERENCES below.)



Fourth Committee meetings 1549, 1558, 1567, 1570.Plenary meeting 1398.

A/5800/Rev.l, Chapter XIII and A/6000/Rev.l,Chapter XII. Reports to 19th and 20th sessionsof General Assembly on Special Committee onSituation with regard to Implementation of Decla-ration on Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples.

A/C.4/L.808 and Add.l. Algeria, Ceylon, Cyprus,Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Iran, Iraq, Kenya,Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Phi-lippines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sy-ria, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia,Zambia: draft resolution, adopted by Fourth Com-mittee on 26 November 1965, meeting 1570, byroll-call vote of 80 to 3, with 12 abstentions, asfollows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil,Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon,Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chad, Chile,

China, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus,Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Ethiopia,Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti,Honduras, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Ja-maica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia,Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Me-xico, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Norway,Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Ro-mania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, SierraLeone, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Thailand,Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey,Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Re-public of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugo-slavia, Zambia..Against: Australia, United Kingdom, UnitedStates.Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland,France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zea-land, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden.

A/6160. Report of Fourth Committee, draft resolu-tion IV.

RESOLUTION 2068(xx) as recommended by Fourth


Committee, A/6160, adopted by Assembly on 16December 1965, meeting 1398, by 90 votes to 3,with 14 abstentions.

"The General Assembly,"Having examined the question of Fiji,"Having studied the chapters of the reports of

the Special Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples relating to the Territory of Fiji,

"Recalling its resolutions 1514(XV) of 14 De-cember 1960, 1654(XVI) of 27 November 1961,1810(XVII) of 17 December 1962 and 1951(XVIII) of 11 December 1963 and the resolutionadopted by the Special Committee on 5 November1964,

"Noting with regret that the administering Powerhas not yet taken effectives measures to implementthe resolutions of the General Assembly,

"Taking into account the fact that any furtherdelay in the implementation of those resolutionswould create further hardships for the people ofthe Territory,

"Considering that the constitutional changes con-templated by the administering Power would fomentseparatist tendencies and stand in the way of thepolitical, economic and social integration of thepeople as a whole,

"1. Approves the chapters of the reports of the

Special Committee on the Situation with regard tothe Implementation of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples relating to the Territory of Fiji, and endorsesthe conclusions and recommendations set forththerein;

"2. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peopleof Fiji to freedom and independence in conformitywith the provisions of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples;

"3. Invites the Government of the United King-dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as theadministering Power, to implement immediately theresolutions of the General Assembly;

"4. Requests the administering Power to take, asa matter of urgency, measures to repeal all dis-criminatory laws and to establish an unqualified sys-tem of democratic representation based on the prin-ciple of 'one man, one vote';

"5. Further requests the administering Power toreport to the Special Committee and to the GeneralAssembly on the implementation of the presentresolution;

"6. Invites the Special Committee to keep thequestion under consideration and to report thereonto the General Assembly at its twenty-first session;

"7. Decides to include the question of Fiji inthe provisional agenda of its twenty-first session."

Gibraltar

Gibraltar, administered by the United King-dom, has an area of 21/4 square miles and apopulation of about 24,500.

In 1964, the General Assembly's 24-memberSpecial Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration onthe Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples noted that there was adisagreement or dispute between the UnitedKingdom and Spain regarding the status andsituation of Gibraltar and invited the twoGovernments to begin talks without delay, inorder to reach a negotiated solution in con-formity with the provisions of the Declaration,bearing in mind the interests of the people ofthe territory.

In a letter dated 30 August 1965, the DeputyPermanent Representative of Spain informedthe Secretary-General that his Government wasready, at any time the United Kingdom Govern-ment wished, to begin the talks recommendedby the Assembly's Special Committee. Spainhad so informed the United Kingdom in No-vember 1964 but the United Kingdom had not

responded to its suggestions for initiating thetalks.

The Permanent Representative of the UnitedKingdom informed the Secretary-General in aletter dated 27 October 1965 that his Govern-ment remained ready to entertain proposals bySpain for conversations but could not holdsuch conversations so long as the abnormalsituation on the frontier between Gibraltar andSpain continued. The United Kingdom regard-ed the restrictions imposed at the border bySpain as a deliberate attempt to influence thesituation. Spain, he said, had also suggestedthat, as a prior condition, the constitutional situ-ation in Gibraltar should be restored to its con-dition before the establishment of a LegislativeCouncil (in 1950).

In a letter dated 5 November 1965, addressedto the Secretary-General, the Permanent Repre-sentative of Spain expressed surprise that theUnited Kingdom had attempted to hold Spainresponsible for the failure to begin negotia-tions. The only reason it had not been possibleto begin negotiations was that the United King-


dom had not wished to do so. Spain had notand did not set any prior condition to the hold-ing of talks and had adopted no measure de-signed to prevent their being held. The measuresreferred to by the United Kingdom Represent-ative were a reflection of the normal exerciseof Spain's sovereignty in its own territory.

The question of Gibraltar was consideredby the General Assembly's Fourth Committeeand at several plenary meetings during theAssembly's twentieth session in 1965.

During the Fourth Committee's debate, Spainstated that Gibraltar was Spanish territory,which was conquered in 1704 and on which aBritish military base was established. After theoccupation of Gibraltar the Spanish populationwas expelled and was replaced by an importedpopulation. It was for this population that theUnited Kingdom was now invoking the rightto self-determination. The Special Committeeof Twenty-Four had recommended that theproblem of Gibraltar should be resolved throughbilateral negotiations that would take into ac-count the interests of its inhabitants. Spainhad always made itself available to negotiateand to respect the interests of the present in-habitants of Gibraltar. Spain was preparedto open negotiations with the United Kingdom,as recommended by the Assembly's Special Com-mittee of Twenty-Four and was not setting oraccepting any prior conditions for such negotia-tions.

The United Kingdom representative describedthe position of his Government regarding itssovereignty over Gibraltar. He said that themeasures taken by the Spanish authorities atthe frontier had altered the circumstances pre-vailing at the time of the adoption of theconsensus by the Special Committee of Twenty-Four. Although the Spanish Government hadasserted that those measures were a mere re-flection of the exercise of Spain's sovereigntyin its own territory, the restrictions nonethelessconstituted an attempt to influence the situation.He reaffirmed that the principle of self-deter-mination applied to the inhabitants of Gibraltaras to any other people. The United KingdomGovernment was always ready to discuss ques-tions of territorial sovereignty in a friendly andconstructive spirit, but the wishes of the peoples

concerned were paramount and the principlesof consultation and consent should be applied.The United Kingdom was willing to enter intonegotiations with the Spanish Government assoon as the situation on the frontier betweenGibraltar and Spain returned to normal.

The majority of Members who spoke on thesubject, Mali and the United Arab Republicamong them, expressed support for the con-sensus of the Special Committee and felt thatthe question of Gibraltar should be resolvedthrough negotiations between Spain and theUnited Kingdom. Mauritania and the Philip-pines were among those which believed thatthe principle of territorial integrity was neces-sary for a true understanding of the principleof self-determination; they felt it should betaken into consideration in the negotiations.

Australia favoured negotiations in order toease the situation between the two countries, butconsidered that questions of sovereignty overcolonial territories did not fall within the com-petence of the Fourth Committee.

The USSR said that, since Gibraltar hadbeen transformed into a military base, the mainissue was not whether it would be under thecontrol of the United Kingdom, under controlof the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) powers or under Anglo-Spanish con-trol. The interest of the Spanish people andthe peoples of all Mediterranean countries, aswell as the cause of peace and security, wouldbe better served by the liquidation of the mili-tary base and the demilitarizatior. of the ter-ritory.

Following the debate, the Fourth Commit-tee, by a roll-call vote of 90 to 0, with 11 ab-stentions, approved a draft resolution sponsoredby Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, CostaRica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mauri-tania, Morocco, Panama, Peru, the: Philippines,Syria, the United Arab Republic, Uruguay andVenezuela. By this text—which was subsequent-ly adopted at a plenary meeting of the Assem-bly on 16 December 1965—the General As-sembly invited the Governments of Spainand of the United Kingdom to begin withoutdelay the talks envisaged in the consensusadopted on 16 October 1964 by the SpecialCommittee of Twenty-Four. It also requestedthe two Governments to inform the SpecialCommittee of Twentv-Four and the General


Assembly at its twenty-first (1966) session of (2070 (XX)) by a roll-call vote of 96 to 0,the outcome of their negotiations. with 11 abstentions. (For full text of resolu-

The Assembly approved this resolution tion, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)



Fourth Committee, meetings 1549, 1551-1553, 1556,1558, 1559, 1576-1578.

Plenary Meetings 1386, 1389, 1398.

A/5800/Rev.l. Report to 19th Assembly session ofSpecial Committee on Situation with regard toImplementation of Declaration on Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,Chapter X.

A/6000/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee to 20thAssembly session, Chapter XI.

A/5959 and Corr.1. Letter of 30 August 1965 fromSpain.

A/6084. Letter of 27 October 1965 from UnitedKingdom.

A/6094. Letter of 5 November 1965 from Spain.A/C.4/L.814. Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia,

Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Pa-nama, Peru, Philippines, Syria, Uruguay, Venezue-la: draft resolution.

A/C.4/L.814/Rev.l and Add.l. Algeria, Argentina,Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, £1 Sal-vador, Honduras, Mauritania, Morocco, Panama,Peru, Philippines, Syria, United Arab Republic,Uruguay, Venezuela: revised draft resolutionadopted by Fourth Committee on 7 December1965, meeting 1578, by roll-call vote of 90 to 0,with 11 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Aus-tralia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma,Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic,Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus,Dahomey, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethio-pia, Finland, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea,Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel,Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya,Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia,Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nether-lands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria,Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines,Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden,Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tu-nisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Republic,United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania,United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela,Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: None.Abstaining: Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czecho-slovakia, France, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, Por-tugal, Romania. Ukrainian SSR, USSR.

A/6160. Report of Fourth Committee, draft resolu-tion VI.

RESOLUTION 2070(xx), as recommended by FourthCommittee, A/6160, adopted by Assembly on 16December 1965, meeting 1398, by roll-call vote of96 to 0, with 11 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Aus-tralia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma,Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic,Ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo (Braz-zaville), Democratic Republic of the Congo, CostaRica, Cuba, Dahomey, Denmark, Dominican Re-public, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland,Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti,Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Is-rael, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxem-bourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldive Is-lands, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal,Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Ni-geria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, SierraLeone, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Swe-den, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Republic, UnitedKingdom, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay,Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: None.Abstaining: Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czecho-slovakia, France, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland,Portugal, Romania, Ukrainian SSR, USSR.

"The General Assembly,"Having considered the question of Gibraltar,"Having studied the chapters of the reports of the

Special Committee on the Situation with regard tothe Implementation of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples relating to Gibraltar,

"Having heard the statements made in the FourthCommittee,

"1. Invites the Governments of Spain and of theUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and NorthernIreland to begin without delay the talks envisagedunder the terms of the consensus adopted on 16October 1964 by the Special Committee on the Situa-tion with regard to the Implementation of theDeclaration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples;

"2. Requests the two Governments to inform theSpecial Committee and the General Assembly, at itstwenty-first session, of the outcome of their negotia-tions."


Ifni and Spanish SaharaIfni, with some 50,000 inhabitants, is a smallterritory on the north-west coast of Africabordered by Morocco. Spanish Sahara, with apopulation of about 24,000, is south of Ifni andis bordered by Morocco and Mauritania. Thetwo territories are administered by Spain. Ifniis the subject of territorial claims by Morocco,and Spanish Sahara by Morocco and Mauri-tania.

In 1965. at its twentieth session, the GeneralAssembly considered the situation in these twoterritories on the basis of the reports19 of theAssembly's 24-member Special Committee onthe Situation with regard to the Implementationof the Declaration on the Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.Discussion at the Assembly session took placemainly in the Assembly's Fourth Committee.

The representatives of Mauritania, Moroccoand Spain restated the positions of their re-spective Governments concerning sovereigntyover the territories.20

A draft resolution on the question of Ifni andSpanish Sahara was submitted in the FourthCommittee by the following 33 Members:Afghanistan, Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, theCentral African Republic, the Congo (Brazza-ville), the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Dahomey, Ghana, Guinea, Iraq, the Ivory Coast,Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi,Mali, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, SaudiArabia, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia,Uganda, the United Arab Republic, UpperVolta, Yemen and Zambia. By this text, theAssembly, among other things, would: (1) ap-prove the provisions of a resolution on thissubject adopted by the Special Committee ofTwenty-Four on 16 October 196421 which urgedSpain to implement the provisions of the De-claration on the granting of independence inthese two territories; and (2) urgently requestthe Government of Spain, as the administeringpower, to take immediately all necessary meas-ures for the liberation of the territories of Ifniand Spanish Sahara from colonial dominationand, to this end, to enter into negotiations onthe problems relating to sovereignty presentedby these two territories.

The representatives of Spain considered thatthe 33-power proposal did not take into accountthat the two territories were geographically dif-ferent. As the Fourth Committee had not dis-cussed the situation in these territories, he con-sidered that it should confine itself to endors-ing the decisions of the Special Committeewhich had considered the question at length.The 33-power draft resolution, however, wentfurther than the Special Committee's recom-mendation and requested Spain to enter intonegotiations on the problems relating to sov-ereignty presented by these two territories. Forthis reason, he asked for deletion of the op-erative paragraph in that text whereby the As-sembly would address an urgent request toSpain to take immediate measures to liberatethe two territories and to enter into negotia-tions on the problems of sovereignty involved.Failing that, this operative paragraph shouldbe voted on separately.

On 10 December, that part of the operativeparagraph specifically asking Spain "to enterinto negotiations on the problems relating tosovereignty presented by these two territories"was approved in the Fourth Committee by aroll-call vote of 35 to 2, with 55 abstentions. Theoperative paragraph as a whole was approvedby 79 votes to 2, with 4 absentions. The draftresolution as a whole was then approved by aroll-call vote of 88 to 2, with 4 abstentions.

On 16 December, the text was approved ata plenary meeting by a roll-call vote of 100 to2, with 4 abstentions, as resolution 2072 (XX).

This decision followed separate votes on (a)the wording requesting Spain "to enter intonegotiations on the problems relating to sov-ereignty presented by these two territories—which was agreed to by a roll-call vote of 33 to2, with 69 abstentions—and (b) the whole op-erative paragraph at issue—which was agreed toby a roll-call vote of 99 to 2, with 4 abstentions.(For full text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARYREFERENCES below.)

19See Y.U.N., 1964, p. 422.2 0Ibid.21 Ibid.




Fourth Committee, meetings 1549, 1550, 1552, 1578,1583.

Plenary Meetings 1398, 1400.

A/C.4/L.817 and Add.1-3. Afghanistan, Algeria,Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic,Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic ofCongo, Dahomey, Ghana, Guinea, Iraq, IvoryCoast, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Ma-lawi, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, SaudiArabia, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia,Uganda, United Arab Republic, Upper Volta,Yemen, Zambia: draft resolution, as orally revised,adopted by Fourth Committee on 10 December1965, meeting 1583, by roll-call vote of 88 to 2,with 4 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Aus-tralia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Canada,Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo(Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of the Congo,Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Daho-mey, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,Ethiopia, Finland, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala,Guinea, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Is-rael, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar,Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria,Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Po-land, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,Sierra Leone, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand,Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic,United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uru-guay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia.Against: Portugal, Spain.Abstaining: El Salvador, France, United Kingdom,United States.

A/6160. Report of Fourth Committee, draft reso-lution VIII.

RESOLUTION 2072 (xx), as proposed by Fourth Com-mittee, A/6160, adopted by Assembly on 16 De-cember 1965, meeting 1398, by roll-call vote of100 to 2, with 4 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Aus-tralia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon,Canada, Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chile,China, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czecho-

slovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Dominican Republic,Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon,Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras,Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Is-rael, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxem-bourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldive Is-lands, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Mo-rocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicara-gua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama,Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania,Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidadand Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, UkrainianSSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, Upper Vol-ta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: Portugal, Spain.Abstaining: France, South Africa, United King-dom, United States.


the Special Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples relating to Ifni and Spanish Sahara,

"Recalling the Declaration on the Granting of In-depence to Colonial Countries and Peoples containedin its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960,

"Bearing in mind that the Declaration is inspiredby the strong desire of the international communityto put an end to colonialism wherever and in what-ever form it may occur,

"1. Approves the provisions of the resolution con-cerning Ifni and Spanish Sahara adopted on 16 Oc-tober 1964 by the Special Committee on the Situa-tion with regard to the Implementation of the De-claration on the Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples,

"2. Urgently requests the Government of Spain,as the administering Power, to take immediately allnecessary measures for the liberation of the Terri-tories of Ifni and Spanish Sahara from colonialdomination and, to this end, to enter into negotia-tions on the problems relating to sovereignty presentedby these two Territories;

"3. Requests the Special Committee to reporton the implementation of the present resolution tothe General Assembly at its twenty-first session;

"4. Requests the Secretary-General to transmitthis resolution to the administering Power."

MauritiusThe United Kingdom-administered territory ofMauritius, consisting of the island of Mauritiusand its dependencies, lies in the western IndianOcean, and has a multi-racial population,mostly Indo-Mauritians.

In 1965, the General Assembly consideredconditions in Mauritius on the basis of recom-mendations contained in reports of its 24-mem-ber Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Declara-


tion on the Granting of Independence to Co-lonial Countries and Peoples. In its recom-mendations, the Special Committee, amongother things, urged the administering power tohold a fully representative conference immedi-ately to draw up a consititution for Mauritiusand fix an early date for its independence.22

Speaking in the General Assembly's FourthCommittee, the representatives of Cuba, theUnited Republic of Tanzania, and Yugoslaviadrew attention to reports that the United King-dom had decided to create a new colony to bemade up of parts of the territories of Mauritiusand the Seychelles that would be used for theinstallation of military and naval bases by theUnited Kingdom and the United States. This,they maintained, was contrary to the Declara-tion and to the principle of self-determination.It was recalled that, in its Cairo Declaration of1964. the Conference of Heads of State or Gov-ernment of Non-Aligned Countries had statedthat the existence of bases in dependent terri-tories which might serve to perpetuate colonial-ism was unacceptable.

The representative of the United Kingdominformed the Fourth Committee that a newconstitution had been approved at a constitu-tional conference held in September 1965 atwhich all parties in the legislature had beenrepresented. Procedures had also been an-nounced whereby the territory could becomeindependent six months after general electionshad been held under an electoral system yet tobe agreed upon.

The islands to which reference had beenmade in the debate, he added, had been unin-habited when the United Kingdom first ac-quired them and had been attached to theMauritius and Seychelles administrations as amatter of administrative convenience. After dis-cussions with the Governments of Mauritius andthe Seychelles, new arrangements for their ad-ministration had been introduced in November1965. Compensation would be paid to theseGovernments, and great care would be takento look after the welfare of the few inhabitants.There was thus no question of splitting upnatural territorial units.

During the debate in the Assembly's FourthCommittee. 33 Members submitted a draft reso-lution whereby, among other things, the As-sembly, noting with deep concern that any stepby the administering power to detach certain

islands from the territory of Mauritius to estab-lish a military base would be in contravention ofthe Declaration on the granting of independence,would: (1) reaffirm the inaliena.ble right ofthe people of the territory of Mauritius tofreedom and independence; (2) invite theUnited Kingdom Government to take effectivemeasures for the immediate and full implemen-tation of the Assembly's resolution of 14 De-cember 196023 (which contained the Declara-tion on the Granting of Independence to Co-lonial Countries and Peoples); and (3) invitethe administering power to take no action thatwould dismember Mauritius and violate its ter-ritorial integrity.

The draft resolution to this effect was sub-mitted by: Algeria, Cameroon, Ceylon, Cyprus,Dahomey, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Iraq, Jor-dan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mali,Mauritania, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria,Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan,Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, the United ArabRepublic, the United Republic of Tanzania,Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zambia.

Introducing the 33-power proposal, the rep-resentatives of India and the United Republicof Tanzania stated that its sponsors consideredthat the United Kingdom Government's plansto grant independence to Mauritius had notyet become concrete and that the Assembly'sresolution of 14 December 1960 should be im-plemented fully and immediately. They alsoconsidered dismemberment of the territory un-desirable and contrary to the resolution of 14December 1960.

Argentina, Bulgaria and Venezuela, amongothers, were in general agreement with the 33-power proposal before the Fourth Committeeand attached particular importance to that partof the text dealing with the detachment of cer-tain islands from the territory for i;he establish-ment of a military base. The representative ofArgentina said that this action would be incontravention of article 6 of the Declaration24

22See Y.U.N., 1964, p. 428.

23 See Y.U.N., I960, pp. 49-50, text of resolution1514 (XV).

24 Article 6 of the Declaration states: "Any attemptaimed at the partial or total disruption of the na-tional unity and the territorial integrity of a countryis incompatible with the purposes and principles ofthe Charter of the United Nations."


whether military bases were involved or not.The representative of Venezuela added that itwas also in contravention of the principles en-shrined in the United Nations Charter.

On 26 November 1965 the Fourth Commit-tee approved the draft resolution by a roll-call

vote of 77 to 0, with 17 abstentions.On 16 December 1965, it was adopted at a

plenary meeting of the Assembly by 89 votes to0, with 18 abstentions, as resolution 2066 (XX).(For full text, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCESbelow.)



Fourth Committee, meetings 1549-1551, 1557, 1558,1566, 1570.

Plenary meeting 1398.

A/5800/Rev.l. Report of Special committee on Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of In-dependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,Chapter XIV, to General Assembly's 19th Session.

A/6000/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee, Chap-ter XIII (to 20th Assembly session).

A/C.4/L.806. Algeria, Ceylon, Cyprus, Dahomey,Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya,Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan,Syria, Togo, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania,Yugoslavia, Zambia: draft resolution.

A/C.4/L.806/Rev.l and Rev.l/Add.l. Algeria, Ca-meroon, Ceylon, Cyprus, Dahomey, Ethiopia,Ghana, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Li-beria, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nepal,Niger, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, So-malia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda,United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tan-zania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia: revised draftresolution, adopted by Fourth Committee on 26November 1965, meeting 1570 by roll-call voteof 77 to 0, with 17 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil,Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon,Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo(Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of the Congo,Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Daho-mey, Denmark, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Greece,Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary,India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya,Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali,Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger,Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines,Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Thai-land, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tur-key, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United ArabRepublic, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay,Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: None.Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Nether-lands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, SouthAfrica, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

RESOLUTION 2066 (xx), as recommended by FourthCommittee, A/6160, adopted by Assembly on 16

December 1965, meeting 1398, by 89 votes to 0,with 18 abstentions.

"The General Assembly,"Having considered the question of Mauritius and

other islands composing the Territory of Mauritius,"Having examined the chapters of the reports

of the Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Declarationon the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples relating to the Territory of Mau-ritius,

"Recalling its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 Decem-ber 1960 containing the Declaration on the Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,

"Regretting that the administering Power has notfully implemented resolution 1514(XV) with regardto that Territory,

"Noting with deep concern that any step taken bythe administering Power to detach certain islandsfrom the Territory of Mauritius for the purpose ofestablishing a military base would be in contraven-tion of the Declaration, and in particular of para-graph 6 thereof,

"1. Approves the chapters of the reports of theSpecial Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples relating to the Territory of Mauritius, andendorses the conclusions and recommendations of theSpecial Committee contained therein;

"2. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peopleof the Territory of Mauritius to freedom and inde-pendence in accordance with General Assembly reso-lution 1514(XV);

"3. Invites the Government of the United King-dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to takeeffective measures with a view to the immediate andfull implementation of resolution 1514(XV) ;

"4. Invites the administering Power to take noaction which would dismember the Territory ofMauritius and violate its territorial integrity;

"5. Further invites the administering Power toreport to the Special Committee and to the GeneralAssembly on the implementation of the presentresolution;

"6. Requests the Special Committee to keep thequestion of the Territory of Mauritius under reviewand to report thereon to the General Assembly at itstwenty-first session."


Other Territories

In 1965, the General Assembly also consideredthe situation in: American Samoa, Antigua, theBahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, the British Vir-gin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Cocos(Keeling) Islands, Dominica, the Gilbert andEllice Islands, Grenada, Guam, Montserrat,New Hebrides, Niue, Papua, Pitcairn, St. Hel-ena, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St.Vincent, the Seychelles, the Solomon Islands,the Tokelau Islands, the Turks and Caicos Is-lands and the United States Virgin Islands. Itdid so on the basis of the recommendationscontained in the 1964 report of its 24-memberSpecial Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration onthe Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples25. The Assembly alsohad before it additional information containedin the Special Committee's report for 1965. Asthe Special Committee did not during 1965consider the situation in British Honduras,Brunei and Hong Kong, it made no recommen-dations and the Assembly took no action onthem. (General Assembly deliberations on theTrust Territories of Nauru and New Guineaand the Territory of Papua, are described inthe preceding chapter, pp. 538-39 and pp.542-43.)

During the general debate which took placein 1965 in the Assembly's Fourth Committeeon the situation in the territories referred toabove, a number of representatives, includingthose of Italy and the Philippines, noted theprogress that had been made in these terri-tories. However, other Members—among them,Mali, the USSR, the United Arab Republicand the United Republic of Tanzania—criti-cized the administering powers for lack of prog-ress in implementing the United Nations Decla-ration on granting independence and drew at-tention to the continued existence in theseterritories of what they described as typicalcolonial features, such as control of the execu-tive and legislative functions by the adminis-tering powers and racial discrimination.

Many members referred to the problem ofthe future of the smaller territories. Thus, therepresentative of the USSR, supported by thoseof Cuba, the United Arab Republic, the United

Republic of Tanzania and Yugoslavia, empha-sized that the Assembly's Declaration of 14December 196026 on the granting of independ-ence was equally applicable to all territoriesand that the cardinal principle in any approachto the problem of future status should be theundisputed recognition of the right of all peo-ples to self-determination and independenceregardless of size, population or stage of devel-opment. The representatives of Cuba, Ghanaand the USSR opposed the merger of terri-tories with the colonial powers. Mali, Syria andYugoslavia called for special procedures to en-able the United Nations to supervise consulta-tions with the inhabitants on their future.

Albania, Cuba, Ghana, India, Mali, Syria,the USSR, the United Republic of Tanzaniaand Yugoslavia called for the elimination of themilitary bases existing in some of these terri-tories, stating that their existence was incon-sistent with the Declaration on granting inde-pendence.

At the conclusion of the general debate, adraft resolution on the situation in these terri-tories was submitted by 26 Members. By this,the Assembly would: endorse the conclusionsand recommendations contained in the reportsof the Special Committee; call upon the ad-ministering powers to implement without delaythe relevant resolutions of the General Assem-bly; request the administering powers to allowUnited Nations visiting missions to visit theterritories and to extend to them full co-opera-tion and assistance; reaffirm the inalienableright of the people of these territories to decidetheir constitutional status; and decide that theUnited Nations should render all help to thepeople of these territories in their efforts freelyto decide their future status. The draft resolu-tion also contained two operative: paragraphswhereby the Assembly would: (c) state thatthe existence or establishment of military basesconstituted an obstacle to the freedom and in-dependence of these territories; and (b) requestthe administering powers to dismantle existingmilitary bases and to refrain from establishingnew ones.

25 See Y.U.N., 1964, pp. 426-34.2 6See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50.


The 26 sponsors of the draft resolutionwere: Algeria, Ceylon, the Congo (Brazza-ville), the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Cyprus, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Kenya,Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Rwanda,Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia,Uganda, the United Arab Republic, the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia andZambia.

Most of the debate on the draft resolutioncentred on the operative paragraphs concern-ing military bases.

Several Members, including Ireland, Italy,the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and theUnited States could not accept these two para-graphs. The United Kingdom held the viewthat the bases were not morally or militarilydefensible unless they were supported by thepeople of the territory in which they were situ-ated. It was therefore for the people concerned,and not for the Assembly, to decide whetherthe bases should be dismantled or retained.Other delegations could find nothing in theUnited Nations Charter or in the Declarationon the Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples that condemned theestablishment of military bases as an obstacleto the freedom and independence of non-self-governing territories. In their view, the matterof military bases was not related to the ques-tion of decolonization.

Spain, although opposed to the establish-ment of military bases in a territory against thewishes of the population, feared that, pendinggeneral and complete disarmament, it wouldbe impossible for all military bases to be dis-mantled without creating an imbalance thatwould threaten world peace.

Other representatives—including those ofDahomey, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan andSierra Leone, as well as those who had calledfor elimination of military bases in the generaldebate—stated that the position set out in thetwo operative paragraphs in question was just,correct and essential and was designed to en-able the people of the territories to decide theirfuture status.

A number of Members abstained in the roll-call votes on these two paragraphs, consideringthat it was for the future independent coun-tries to decide on the maintenance or removal

of such bases and that any position on the mat-ter adopted by the United Nations would beprejudging the decision of future independentStates.

On 7 December 1965, the Fourth Committeeapproved the draft resolution by 76 votes to 8,with 14 abstentions. The operative paragraphstating that the existence of military bases con-stituted an obstacle to the freedom and inde-pendence of these territories, was adopted by aroll-call vote of 50 to 26, with 23 abstentions.The operative paragraph on dismantling exist-ing military bases was adopted by a roll-callvote of 50 to 27, with 22 abstentions.

When the draft resolution was considered ata plenary meeting of the General Assembly on16 December 1965, separate votes were againrequested on these two operative paragraphs.The first, terming the military bases an obstacleto freedom and independence, received 48 votesin favour to 37 against, with 24 abstentions; thesecond, calling for the dismantling of bases,received 48 votes in favour to 37 against, with19 abstentions.

Both paragraphs were rejected following aruling by the President that they had failed toobtain the required two-thirds majority in ac-cordance with paragraph 2 of Article 18 of theUnited Nations Charter (which states in partthat General Assembly decisions on "import-ant questions shall be made by a two-thirdsmajority of the Members present and voting. . .")27 In explanation, the President statedthat the General Assembly had always regardedthe question of implementing the Declarationon granting independence as an importantquestion. Moreover, the paragraphs in questionrelated to the maintenance of peace.

The representative of the USSR challengedthe President's ruling. The President's rulingwas, however, upheld by 56 votes to 30, with9 abstentions. The Assembly then adopted thedraft resolution, as amended, as resolution2069 (XX), by 91 votes to 0, with 10 absten-tions.

The Assembly thereby: endorsed the con-clusions and recommendations of the SpecialCommittee of Twenty-Four; called upon theadministering powers to implement all relevant

For full text of Article 18, paragraph 2 ofUnited Nations Charter, see APPENDIX II.

27


General Assembly resolutions; requested ad-ministering powers to allow United NationsVisiting Missions to visit the territories; reaf-firmed the right of the people of these terri-tories to decide their constitutional status inaccordance with the United Nations Charterand the provisions of the Declaration on grant-ing independence; decided that the United

Nations should render all help to the peopleof these territories in their efforts freely to de-cide their future status; and asked its SpecialCommittee of Twenty-Four to report on im-plementation at the next Assembly session. (Forfull text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARY RE-FERENCES below.)

(See also pp. 551-54.)



Fourth Committee, meetings 1549-1551, 1553, 1556-1558, 1560, 1576, 1578.


A/5800/Rev.l. Report to 19th Assembly session ofCommittee on Situation with regard to Imple-mentation of Declaration on Granting of Indepen-dence to Colonial Countries and Peoples: ChapterXIV, Seychelles and St. Helena; Chapter XV, Niueand Tokelau Islands; Chapter XVI; American Sa-moa; Chapter XVII, Guam; Chapter XIX, Cocos(Keeling Islands); Chapter XX, New Hebrides,Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Pitcairn Island andSolomon Islands; Chapter XXIV, Bermuda, Baha-mas, Turks and Caicos Islands and Cayman Is-lands; Chapter XXV, United States Virgin Islands,British Virgin Islands, Antigua, Dominica, Gre-nada, Montserrat, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lu-cia, St. Vincent and Barbados.

A/6000/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee to 20thAssembly session: Chapter XIII, Seychelles andSt. Helena; Chapter XIV, Niue and Tokelau Is-lands; Chapter XV, American Samoa; ChapterXVI, Guam; Chapter XVIII, Papua and Cocos(Keeling) Islands; Chapter XIX, New Hebrides,Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Pitcairn and SolomonIslands; Chapter XXIII, Bermuda, Bahamas, Turksand Caicos Islands and Cayman Islands; ChapterXXIV; United States Virgin Islands, British Vir-gin Islands, Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, Mont-serrat, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vin-cent and Barbados.

A/C.4/L.810 and Corr.1 and Add.l, 2. Algeria,Ceylon, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republicof Congo, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India,Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Rwanda,Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia,Uganda, United Arab Republic, United Republicof Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia: draftresolution, adopted by Fourth Committee on 7December 1965, meeting 1578, by 76 votes to 8,with 14 abstentions.

A/6160. Report of Fourth Committee, draft resolu-tion V.

RESOLUTION 2069 (xx), as recommended by FourthCommittee, A/6160, and as amended by Assembly,adopted by Assembly on 16 December 1965, meet-

ing 1398, by 91 votes to 0, with 10 abstentions.

"The General Assembly,"Having considered the question of American Sa-

moa, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, BritishVirgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cocos (Keeling)Islands, Dominica, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Gre-nada, Guam, Montserrat, New Hebrides, Niue, Pa-pua, Pitcairn, St. Helena, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla,St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Seychelles, Solomon Islands,Tokelau Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands and theUnited States Virgin Islands,

"Having examined the chapters of the reports ofthe Special Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples relating to these Territories,

"Recalling its resolutions 1514(XV) of 14 De-cember 1960, 1654(XVI) of 27 November 1961,1810 (XVII) of 17 December1962 and 1956(XVIII) of 11 December 1963,

"Regretting that the administering Powers havenot yet implemented the relevant resolutions of theGeneral Assembly,

"Aware of the special circumstances of geogra-phical isolation and economic conditions concerningsome of these Territories,

"1. Approves the chapters of the reports of theSpecial Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples relating to these Territories, and endorsesthe conclusions and recommendations containedtherein;

"2. Calls upon the administering Powers to im-plement without delay the revelant resolutions of theGeneral Assembly;

"3. Requests the administering Powers to allowUnited Nations visiting missions to visit the Terri-tories, and to extend to them full co-operation andassistance;

"4. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peopleof these Territories to decide their constitutionalstatus in accordance with the Charter of the UnitedNations and with the provisions of resolution 1514(XV) and other relevant General Assembly reso-lutions :

"5. Decides that the United Nations should

QUESTIONS RELATING TO NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES 591render all help to the people of these Territoriesin their efforts freely to decide their future status;

"6. Requests the Special Committee to examinethe situation in these Territories and to report on

the implementation of the present resolution to theGeneral Assembly at its twenty-first session;

"7. Requests the Secretary-General to give all as-sistance in the implementation of this resolution."

CHAPTER III

QUESTIONS RELATING TO TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION ONNON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES

TERRITORIES ON WHICH INFORMATIONWAS TRANSMITTED DURING 1965

Under Chapter XI of the United NationsCharter, the United Nations Members responsi-ble for the administration of territories whosepeople have not yet attained a full measure ofself-government recognize the principle that theinterests of the inhabitants of these territoriesare paramount. (For text of Chapter XI ofthe Charter, see APPENDIX III.)

In keeping with this principle, the adminis-tering Members undertake, among other obli-gations, to develop self-government in theterritories, taking into account the political as-pirations of the people. In accordance with theprovisions of Article 73e of the Charter, theyalso send information each year to the Secre-tary-General on the economic, social and edu-cational conditions in the territories. Someadministering Members also inform the GeneralAssembly's 24-member Special Committee onthe Situation with regard to the Implementa-tion of the Declaration on the Granting of In-dependence to Colonial Countries and Peoplesabout political and constitutional developmentsin the territories for which they are responsible.These, in 1965, included Australia, New Zea-land, Spain, the United Kingdom and theUnited States.

During 1965, information relating to 1964was transmitted to the Secretary-General withrespect to the following territories:

Australia: The Cocos (Keeling) Islands; PapuaFrance: The New Hebrides (Condominium with

United Kingdom)New Zealand: The Cook Islands; Niue Island;

the Tokelau IslandsSpain: Equatorial Guinea (Fernando P6o and Rio

Muni); Ifni; Spanish Sahara

United Kingdom: Aden; Antigua; Bahamas; Barba-dos; Basutoland; Bechuanaland; Bermuda; BritishGuiana*; British Honduras; the British VirginIslands; Brunei; the Cayman Islands; Dominica; theFalkland Islands; Fiji; Gibraltar; the Gilbert andEllice Islands; Grenada; Hong Kong; Mauritius;Montserrat; the New Hebrides (Condominium withFrance); Pitcairn; St. Helena; St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla; St. Lucia; St. Vincent; the Seychelles;the Solomon Islands; Swaziland; the Turks andCaicos Islands

United States: American Samoa; Guam; the UnitedStates Virgin Islands

* British Guiana attained its independence asGuyana on 26 May 1966.

No information was transmitted on the ter-ritories under Portuguese administration, name-ly, Angola (including Cabinda), the CapeVerde Archipelago, Guinea (Portuguese),Macau and dependencies, Mozambique, SaoTome and Principe and dependencies, andTimor (Portuguese) and dependencies. By reso-lution 1542 (XV) of 15 December I960,1 theGeneral Assembly considered that these werenon-self-governing territories within the mean-ing of Chapter XI of the United NationsCharter. Nor was information transmitted bythe Government of the United Kingdom onSouthern Rhodesia, which, the General Assem-bly affirmed by resolution 1747 (XVI) of 28June 1962,2 was a non-self-governing territorywithin the meaning of Chapter XI of theCharter.

STUDY OF INFORMATION

TRANSMITTED BY

ADMINISTERING MEMBERS

Up to 1963, the information transmitted by

For text, see Y.U.N., 1960, p. 513.For text, see Y.U.N., 1962, p. 426.

1

2

[ 1965 ] part 1 sec 3 chapter 2 the situation with regard...

Documents