1965, 2053 a (xx) of 15 december 1965, 2249(s-v)...

92 POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS

other models of peace-keeping operations; and(3) transmit to the Special Committee the rec-ords of the debates on peace-keeping at thecurrent session, with the request that the sug-gestions and proposals contained therein betaken into account.

The draft resolution was approved on 10

December 1969 by the Special Political Com-mittee by 77 votes to 0, with 1 abstention. On15 December 1969, the General Assemblyadopted the text recommended by the SpecialPolitical Committee, by a vote of 109 to 1, with1 abstention, as resolution 2576(XXIV). (Fortext, see: DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

Special Committeemeetings 37-42.

on Peace-keeping Operations,

GENERAL ASSEMBLY——24-TH SESSION

Special Political Committee, meetings 687-689.Plenary Meetings 1830, 1833, 1838.

A/7601. Annual report of Secretary-General on workof the Organization, 16 June 1968-15 June 1969,Chapter IV.

A/7742. Comprehensive review of whole question ofpeace-keeping operations in all their aspects. Reportof Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations.

A/SPC/L.178. Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Mex-ico, USSR, United Arab Republic, United King-dom, United States: draft resolution, approved bySpecial Political Committee on 10 December 1969,meeting 689, by 77 votes to 0, with 1 abstention.

A/7878. Report of Special Political Committee.

RESOLUTION 2576(xxiv), as proposed by Special Po-litical Committee, A/7878, adopted by Assemblyon 15 December 1969, meeting 1833, by 109 votesto 1, with 1 abstention.The General Assembly,Recalling its resolutions 2006 (XIX) of 18 February

1965, 2053 A (XX) of 15 December 1965, 2249(S-V)of 23 May 1967, 2308(XXII) of 13 December 1967and 2451 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968,

Having received and examined the report of theSpecial Committee on Peace-keeping Operations of 3November 1969,

1. Takes note of the progress already achieved bythe Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operationsin carrying out the mandate entrusted to it;

2. Requests the Special Committee on Peace-keep-ing Operations to continue its work and to submit tothe General Assembly at its twenty-fifth session a com-prehensive report on the United Nations military ob-servers established or authorized by the Security Coun-cil for observation purposes pursuant to Councilresolutions, as well as a progress report on such workas the Special Committee may be able to undertakeon any other models of peace-keeping operations;

3. Transmits to the Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations the records of the debates at thepresent session on the item entitled "Comprehensivereview of the whole question of peace-keeping opera-tions in all their aspects", with the request that thesuggestions and proposals contained therein be takeninto account.

A/7632. Letter of 8 December 1969 from Sweden.A/7630. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly

during its 24th session, 16 September-17 December1969. Other decisions, pp. 26-27.

CHAPTER VII

QUESTIONS RELATING TO AFRICA

MATTERS CONCERNING SOUTH AFRICA'S APARTHEID POLICIES

The apartheid policies of the Government ofSouth Africa continued to be examined in 1969by the General Assembly and its 11-memberSpecial Committee on the Policies of Apartheidof the Government of the Republic of SouthAfrica. The Economic and Social Council andthe Commission on Human Rights also consid-ered aspects of those policies and the situationsresulting therefrom.

In its report to the General Assembly, theSpecial Committee on Apartheid emphasizedIts view that there was an extremely grave threatto the peace posed by the further deteriorationof the situation in the whole of southern Africa.Contributing to this deterioration were SouthAfrica's continued defiance of the decisions ofthe United Nations, its intensification of apart-heid policies, its massive build-up of military

QUESTIONS RELATING TO AFRICA 93and police forces, intervention against the forcesof liberation movements in Southern Rhodesiaand aid to Portugal in the latter's colonial wars.

The Special Committee felt that urgent ac-tion by the international community was impera-tive to avert a major conflict in the area. Iturged that the three main lines of action becontinued, namely: measures, including thearms embargo and universally applied economicsanctions, to oblige South Africa to renounce itsapartheid policies and seek a peaceful solutionunder the United Nations Charter; moral, politi-cal and material assistance to the oppressedpeople of South Africa; and dissemination ofinformation world-wide to secure full under-standing and support of efforts to eliminateapartheid and avert the threat to peace.

At the twenty-fourth session of the GeneralAssembly, which opened on 16 September 1969,the decisions and recommendations of the Spe-cial Committee on Apartheid and of other bodieswere discussed and a number of resolutions onaspects of apartheid policies were adopted.

On 21 November 1969, the Assembly adoptedtwo resolutions after discussion of the SpecialCommittee's report. By the first resolution, theGeneral Assembly condemned the South AfricanGovernment for its refusal to comply with pastUnited Nations resolutions and for its repressiveacts against the liberation movement of theSouth African people. The Assembly urged theunconditional release of all political prisonersand persons restricted for opposition to apart-heid and reiterated that freedom fighters takenprisoner in the course of their legitimate strug-gle for liberation should be extended humanetreatment in accordance with the humanitarianprinciples of the Geneva Convention relative tothe Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August1949.

By the second resolution, the Assembly re-iterated its condemnation of apartheid as acrime against humanity and urged all Statesand organizations to provide increased assistanceto the national movement of the oppressed peo-

ple of South Africa in their legitimate strugglefor their inalienable right of self-determination.In support of that struggle, the Assembly askedall States to apply various economic and finan-cial sanctions and to implement the embargocalled for by the Security Council on the sup-plying of arms and other military equipment toSouth Africa.

Further, the Assembly recommended that theSecurity Council resume consideration of theapartheid question with a view to adopting ef-fective measures, including those under ChapterVII of the United Nations Charter,1 to elimi-nate the threat to international peace and se-curity posed by apartheid in the area.

In other actions that related to the questionof apartheid, the General Assembly requested allStates, as well as the specialized agencies andinternational institutions, to withhold assistanceof any kind from the Government of SouthAfrica until it had renounced its policy of racialdiscrimination. The Assembly also welcomedthe Manifesto on Southern Africa. This Mani-festo, among other things, declared the opposi-tion of African States to policies of apartheid.

Four additional resolutions dealt with thequestion of racial discrimination and particu-larly the policies of the South African Govern-ment. One of these set forth the Assembly'sdesignation of 1971 as the International Yearfor Action to Combat Racism and Racial Dis-crimination. Another dealt with measures to betaken against nazism and racial intolerance, andtwo resolutions dealt specifically with measuresto combat racial discrimination, apartheid andsegregation in southern Africa.

The Assembly also considered a report on theUnited Nations Educational and Training Pro-gramme for Southern Africa and called forgenerous contributions to the Programme.

These and other decisions of United Nationsorgans are described in the sections below.

1 For text of Chapter VII of the Charter, see APPEN-DIX II.

Political and Related DevelopmentsREPORT OF SPECIALCOMMITTEE ON APARTHEID

The General Assembly's Special Committeeon the Policies of Apartheid of the Government

of the Republic of South Africa submitted itsreport to the General Assembly and to theSecurity Council on 13 October 1969. The re-port reviewed the Committee's work during

94 POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS1969 and described new developments in SouthAfrica since the previous report, submitted on4 October 1968.

On 17 and 18 March 1969, the Special Com-mittee held a special session at United NationsHeadquarters, New York, to consider the ques-tion of economic sanctions and related measuresto secure the elimination of apartheid. Partici-pants included representatives of church, stu-dent, trade union and other non-governmentalorganizations in the United States concernedwith the situation in South Africa, representa-tives of other United Nations bodies dealingwith problems in southern Africa, officials ofspecialized agencies and the Organization ofAfrican Unity (OAU), a representative of theSouth African Liberation Movement and anumber of experts on South Africa and southernAfrica.

During the session, the Special Committeeissued a statement urgently appealing to allStates to exert all efforts to secure an end to thetrial in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, of 12Africans under the Terrorism Act. The SpecialCommittee transmitted its statement to thePresident of the Securitv Council and to theCommission on Human Rights.

A review of the special session was includedin the Special Committee's report to the Gen-eral Assembly, as was the Committee's consid-eration of the report of the six-member sub-committee which had visited Africa from 18 to28 August 1969 to consult with representativesof the South African Liberation Movement,officials of OAU and the Governments of Ethi-opia, the United Republic of Tanzania, andZambia.

Also reviewed was the Special Committee'scommemoration of the International Day forthe Elimination of Racial Discrimination and itsobservance of South Africa Freedom Day. TheSpecial Committee summarized the work of itsSub-Committees on Petitions and on Informa-tfon on Apartheid and that of its WorkingGroup on the implementation of United Nationsresolutions on the question 'of apartheid.

The Special Committee emphasized the ex-tremely grave threat to the peace posed by thefurther deterioration of the situation in thewhole of southern Africa. Contributing factors,it said, were South Africa's continued defianceof United Nations resolutions, intensification

of its apartheid policy, massive build-up of itsmilitary and police forces, intervention againstthe forces of liberation movements in SouthernRhodesia and assistance to Portugal in its colo-nial wars. Urgent action by the internationalcommunity was imperative to avert a majorconflict in the area.

The Special Committee remained convincedthat three main lines of activity were the mostappropriate and effective for solving the prob-lem of apartheid. These were: (a) measures,including an arms embargo and universally ap-plied economic sanctions under Chapter VII ofthe United Nations Charter,2 to oblige the SouthAfrican Government to renounce the inhumanpolicies of apartheid and seek a peaceful solu-tion under the Charter; (b) the provision ofmoral, political and material assistance to theoppressed people of South Africa in their legiti-mate struggle to achieve their inalienable rights ;and (c) the dissemination of information on aworld-wide basis in order to secure full under-standing and support for the efforts directedtowards the elimination of apartheid and avertthe grave threat to international peace andsecurity.

The policies and actions of the South AfricanGovernment in Namibia and in neighbouringcolonial territories, the Special Committeeadded., had aggravated the situation in the wholeof southern Africa. Questions relating to SouthAfrica, Namibia, Southern Rhodesia and Por-tuguese territories should therefore be consideredin the: southern African context. The SpecialCommittee suggested that arrangements regard-ing committees with competence on the southernAfrican questions should be reviewed to promoteco-ordination and facilitate more effective ac-tion by the international community.

REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL DAY

FOR THE ELIMINATION

OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

The Special Committee on the Policies ofApartheid observed the International Day forthe Elimination of Racial Discrimination—21March 1969—at a special meeting at UnitedNations Headquarters. The meeting was at-tended by representatives of virtually all the

2 For text of Chapter VII of the Charter, see APPEN-DIX II.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO AFRICA 95United Nations Member States, of the special-ized agencies of the United Nations and of OAU.On that day, the Special Committee issued anappeal for the liberation of all South Africanprisoners. Another special meeting in observanceof this International Day was held on 21 May1969 in Geneva.

In a report on the commemoration of theInternational Day, the United Nations Secre-tariat noted that in many parts of the worldthe International Day was observed at bothgovernmental and non-governmental levels, aswell as by the United Nations specialized agen-cies and other inter-governmental organizations.The observances were marked by a wide varietyof activities designed to emphasize abhorrenceof the philosophy of apartheid. (See also pp.487-88.) Contributions and pledges were alsomade to the United Nations Trust Fund forSouth Africa and to the Educational and Train-ing Programme for Southern Africa.

ACTION BY COMMISSIONON HUMAN RIGHTS ANDECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

DECISIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

The Commission on Human Rights, at itstwenty-fifth session held at United NationsHeadquarters from 17 February to 21 March1969, adopted six resolutions in connexion withits annual consideration, initiated in 1967, of thequestion of the violation of human rights andfundamental freedoms, including policies of ra-cial discrimination and segregation and ofapartheid, in all countries, with particular refer-ence to colonial and other dependent countriesand territories.

On 26 February 1969, the Commission de-nounced the intensification of the policy ofapartheid practised by the rulers of SouthAfrica and the increasing aggravation of itsconsequences, and, in particular: the iniquitousmeasures inflicted retroactively on numerousnon-whites and some whites; measures compel-ling coloured persons to separate from theirfamilies; forced labour imposed on colouredworkers for derisory wages; the prohibition of"mixed" group activity in cultural, political ortrade union affairs; and concentration in a poorand tiny area of coloured people who weredeprived of all medical care. The Commission

also appealed to world public opinion to supportand encourage the efforts of the internationalcommunity designed to eliminate the odiouspractice of apartheid.

By the terms of a resolution adopted on 27February 1969, the Commission proposed thatthe Economic and Social Council ask the Gen-eral Assembly to establish an ad hoc committeeto submit proposals concerning, among otherthings, the responsibilities of various UnitedNations organs and bodies concerned with com-bating policies of racial discrimination, apart-heid and segregation in southern Africa. (Forfurther details, see page 495. Also, see below,page 96, for Economic and Social Councilaction. )

By another resolution adopted on 27 Febru-ary, entitled "Measures for effectively combat-ing racial discrimination, the policies of apart-heid and segregation in southern Africa," theCommission reaffirmed that the practice ofapartheid was a crime against humanity and thesituation in southern Africa a threat to interna-tional peace and security. It denounced the lawsand practices instituted and imposed to oppressthe non-white populations in southern Africaand, among other things, called upon allGovernments which still maintained diplomatic,commercial, military, cultural and other rela-tions with the racist Government of SouthAfrica and the racist illegal régime of SouthernRhodesia to terminate such relations immedi-ately in accordance with the resolutions of theGeneral Assembly and the Security Council.

By the same resolution, the Commission onHuman Rights endorsed the conclusions andrecommendations of its Special Rapporteur,Manouchehr Ganji, who had been asked in1967 and. 1968 to survey United Nations ac-tivities aimed at eliminating the policies andpractices of apartheid and to study legislationand practices in South Africa, Namibia andSouthern Rhodesia instituted to establish andmaintain apartheid and racial discrimination.The Commission invited non-governmental or-ganizations, including trade unions and religiousbodies, to intensify their efforts in mobilizingpublic opinion against repressive legislationand other acts against the non-white populationsof South Africa, Namibia and Southern Rhode-sia. It also requested the Secretary-General fur-ther to intensify, through all United Nations


information media, efforts to inform the peoplesof southern Africa of the activities of the UnitedNations organs to eliminate the policy ofapartheid and racial discrimination, with em-phasis on the positive alternative of a multi-racial society based on the principle of racialequality. The Commission also decided that theSpecial Rapporteur should continue his taskand submit a further report. (For further de-tails, see pp. 495-96.)

On 7 March 1969, the Commission adopteda resolution by which, among other things, itexpressed its concern that the revival of groupsand organizations professing totalitarian andracist ideologies promoted the policy of apart-heid, colonialism and racial intolerance. TheCommission asked its Sub-Commission on thePrevention of Discrimination and Protection ofMinorities to deal in its current study of the re-vival of nazism with the danger of the revivalof that ideology and how it might affect theexistence and safeguarding of fundamental hu-man rights and freedoms. (For further details,see pp. 490-91.)

That Sub-Commission having designated aSpecial Rapporteur to study the question ofslavery and the slave trade, including theslavery-like practices of apartheid and colonial-ism, the Human Rights Commission, by a reso-lution of 11 March 1969, recommended con-firmation of that designation by the Economicand Social Council. (For further details, seepp. 533-34.)

By another resolution, adopted on 19 March1969, the Human Rights Commission welcomedthe observations, conclusions and recommenda-tions of its Ad Hoc Working Group of Expertson the treatment of political prisoners in theRepublic of South Africa, Namibia, SouthernRhodesia and the African territories underPortuguese administration. It decided that themandate of the Working Group of Expertsshould be further extended to include: an in-quiry into the question of capital punishmentin southern Africa, in accordance with theGeneral Assembly's resolution of 26 November1968;3 an inquiry into the treatment meted outto political prisoners, as well as to capturedfreedom fighters, in southern Africa; an inves-tigation into the conditions of Africans in theso-called Transit Camps, as well as on the so-called Native Reserves, in the Republic of

South Africa, in Namibia and in SouthernRhodesia; and a further investigation of gravemanifestations of apartheid in South Africa andof colonialism and racial discrimination inNamibia, Southern Rhodesia, Angola, Mozam-bique and Guinea (Bissau) resulting from theactions of their respective régimes. (For furtherdetails, see pp. 503-504.)

DECISIONS OF ECONOMIC

AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

At its forty-sixth session, held from 12 May to6 June 1969, the Economic and Social Counciladopted a series of resolutions—on 6 June 1969—relating to the policies of apartheid and situ-ations arising therefrom in southern Africa.

By the terms of resolution 1414(XLVI), theCouncil, recognizing the need to co-ordinate theactivities of the various United Nations bodieswith respect to apartheid and racial segregationin southern Africa, requested the Secretary-General to report to the forty-eighth (early1970) session of the Council on: the terms ofreference of the different United Nations or-gans and their subsidiary bodies dealing withviolations of human rights and fundamentalfreedoms in southern Africa; a brief survey ofactivities so far undertaken by the various or-gans designed to bring about respect for humanrights in southern Africa; and a statement ofthe activities so far undertaken by the special-ized agencies, particularly the InternationalLabour Organisation (ILO) and the UnitedNations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO), in the same field.

The Council adopted this text unanimouslyon the recommendation of its Social Committee,which had unanimously approved it on 29 May1969. The proposal was originally made by theCommission on Human Rights and wasamended in the Social Committee by theUnited Kingdom. (For text of resolution, seeDOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

By resolution 1412(XLVI) of 6 June, theEconomic and Social Council, noting that in-fringements of trade union rights continuedunabated in South Africa, Southern Rhodesiaand Namibia, and concerned that they were thedirect outcome of the policies of apartheid and

3 See Y.U.N., 1968, pp. 606-7, text of resolution

2394(XXIII).

QUESTIONS RELATING TO AFRICA 97

racial discrimination pursued by the régimes inthese countries, again called upon the SouthAfrican Government to conform to the gener-ally accepted international standards pertainingto the right to freedom of association of tradeunion organizations and, among other things,to repeal its discriminatory labour laws. TheCouncil made many specific recommendationsand asked the Ad Hoc Working Group of Ex-perts (established by the Commission on Hu-man Rights) to continue its investigations ofinfringements of trade union rights in SouthAfrica, Namibia and, in co-operation with ILO,in Southern Rhodesia. (For details, see pp.534-37.)

By another resolution of 6 June—1415(XLVI)—the Economic and Social Council recom-mended to the General Assembly the adoptionof a resolution whereby that body, expressingalarm at the evidence of gross and systematicviolations of human rights and fundamentalfreedoms in South Africa, Namibia and South-ern Rhodesia, would call upon the South Afri-can Government to repeal various discrimina-tory laws and to assist the United Nations inrestoring the human rights of the inhabitantsof Namibia by immediately terminating thatGovernment's illegal occupation of Namibia.The Assembly would also, among other things:condemn the South African Government for itsperpetuation and further intensification of theinhuman policy of apartheid in South Africaand Namibia; call upon the South AfricanGovernment to rescind immediately the "ban-ning orders" issued under the Suppression ofCommunism Act against the opponents ofapartheid: express regret that several MemberStates were not observing the relevant UnitedNations resolutions urging severance of diplo-matic, commercial, military, cultural and otherrelations with the racist Government of SouthAfrica and the racist illegal minority régime ofSouthern Rhodesia and call upon them to ter-minate such relations; and request the Secretary-General to establish a unit of the United Na-tions Radio in Africa to produce and broadcastradio programmes to the peoples of southernAfrica and to give the widest publicity to theevils of the apartheid policies and to the actionsof the racist régimes of South Africa, Namibiaand Southern Rhodesia through non-govern-mental and other organizations.

On 15 December 1969, the General Assemblyadopted the text recommended by the Councilas its resolution 2547 B (XXIV).

(For further details, see pp. 497-502.)The Economic and Social Council also

recommended to the General Assembly theadoption of a resolution renewing that body'sstrong condemnation of racism, nazism, apart-heid and all other totalitarian ideologies andpractices and urgently calling upon those Stateswhich had not yet done so to take immediateand effective measures for the prohibition ofnazi, néo-nazi and racist organizations andgroups and for their prosecution in their courts.The Council's recommendation was embodiedin resolution 1417(XLVI) of 6 June 1969.

On 11 December 1969, the General Assemblyadopted the recommended text as its resolution2545 (XXIV).

(For further details, see pp. 489-93.)By another resolution of 6 June—1419(XLVI)

—the Economic and Social Council confirmed,as recommended by the Human Rights Com-mission, the designation of a Special Rappor-teur by the Sub-Commission on Prevention ofDiscrimination and Protection of Minorities tostudy measures to implement United Nationsrecommendations relating to slavery, includingthe slavery-like practices of apartheid and colo-nialism. (For further details, see pp. 533-34.)

On the same date, the Council also adoptedresolution 1424(XLVI) by which it reiteratedits condemnation of every practice of tortureand ill-treatment of prisoners, detainees andfreedom fighters perpetrated by the régimes inSouth Africa, Namibia, Southern Rhodesia andthe territories under Portuguese administrationand postponed, for lack of time, detailed con-sideration of the various recommendations foraction contained in the report of the HumanRights Commission's Ad Hoc Working Groupof Experts on the treatment of political prisonersin southern Africa. (For details, see p. 504.)

Finally, the Economic and Social Council,by a decision taken on 6 June 1969, withoutadoption of a resolution, asked the GeneralAssembly to extend the scope of the UnitedNations Trust Fund for South Africa to provideassistance to the victims of apartheid and racialdiscrimination in Southern Rhodesia. The Coun-cil took this decision on the recommendation ofits Social Committee.


REPORTS BYSECRETARY-GENERAL

On 2 January 1969, the Secretary-Generaltransmitted to all Member States and the spe-cialized agencies the text of the General Assem-bly's resolution 2396(XXIII) of 2 December1968.4 By this resolution, the Assembly hadaddressed wide-ranging appeals and requests toStates concerning various activities they couldinitiate with a view to creating a favourableclimate for the eradication of apartheid. Inseveral notes dated between 7 April and 1 De-cember, the Secretary-General transmitted toUnited Nations Members the substantive partsof communications received from 10 States inresponse. All reiterated their recognition of thelegitimacy of the South African people's strug-gle against the policy of apartheid, their re-pugnance at the policy and their solidarity withthe oppressed majority brutalized and victim-ized by apartheid. A few gave details of publicenlightenment campaigns and programmes con-ducted in their countries.

CONSIDERATION BYGENERAL ASSEMBLYGENERAL ASPECTS

The item relating to the policies of apartheidof the Government of the Republic of SouthAfrica was included in the agenda of the twenty-fourth session of the General Assembly, in 1969,on the recommendation of the Assembly's Gen-eral Committee. During the discussion by theGeneral Assembly of the adoption of the agenda,South Africa's representative, expressing reser-vations on the item, stated that its inclusion onthe agenda and its subsequent considerationwould contravene Article 2, paragraph 7, of theUnited Nations Charter, which precludes theUnited Nations from intervening in matterswhich are essentially within the domestic juris-diction of any State.5 The General Committee,however, approved adoption of the item andallocated it to the Assembly's Special PoliticalCommittee, which devoted 20 meetings to itsconsideration between 21 October and 14 No-vember 1969.

Presenting the report of the Special Com-mittee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Gov-ernment of the Republic of South Africa, itsRapporteur said that the situation in SouthAfrica had continued to deteriorate. He declared

that United Nations decisions were beingflouted with impunity, that the arms embargocalled for by the Security Council had beenviolated, that South Africa's major trading part-ners had increased their financial and economicinvolvement in the apartheid system, and thatthe South African Government had set itself onan expansionist and militarist course in its rela-tions with some neighbouring States and hadmoved closer to the brink of what might proveto be a disaster for all mankind.

The Rapporteur drew attention to morestringent measures for racial separation anddiscrimination enforced by new South Africanlaws, some of which were further eroding allbasic human rights. Arbitrary detention, ban-ishment and banning of all opponents of apart-heid had increased.

The Chairman of the Special Committee onApartheid, who also addressed the SpecialPolitical Committee, referred to the arms em-bargo and pointed out that statistics showingthat 95 per cent of the United Nations member-ship was observing the arms embargo becamemeaningless when the other 5 per cent consistedof rich industrialized countries which suppliedlarge quantities of arms and which, he stated,put profit before principle. Touching on thequestion of general economic sanctions againstSouth Africa, he stated that no such boycottcould succeed as long as South Africa's maintrading partners—the United Kingdom, theUnited States, the Federal Republic of Ger-many and Japan—withheld their co-operation.

The Chairman of the Special Committee onApartheid drew particular attention to a num-ber of the Special Committee's recommenda-tions. That Committee had expressed the hopethat the United Nations and the specializedagencies would refrain from co-operating withbanks and other financial enterprises which pro-vided assistance to the South African Govern-

4 See Y.U.N., 1968, pp. 120-22, text of resolution2396 (XXIII).

5 Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter states:"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall au-thorizi; the United Nations to intervene in matterswhich are essentially within the domestic jurisdictionof any state or shall require the Members to submitsuch matters to settlement under the present Charter:but this principle shall not prejudice the application ofenforcement measures under Chapter VII."


ment and South African companies. Such co-operation, the Special Committee on Apartheidhad pointed out, would make a mockery of theUnited Nations appeal to individual States andorganizations to boycott firms and institutionswhich openly co-operated with the South Afri-can Government and supported its economy.Noting that certain States had allowed in-creased air services between their countries andSouth Africa, contrary to the recommendationof the Special Committee on Apartheid, hestated his disagreement with the view that bykeeping open such lines of communicationsoutside influence might weaken the appeal ofapartheid. Far from having such an effect, hesaid, the publicity and high-powered advertis-ing which accompanied reciprocal air serviceswith South Africa accorded its Government ameasure of respect and dignity which couldpave the way for wider acceptance and toler-ance of the policy of apartheid.

Referring to a recommendation relating toenlargement of the Special Committee onApartheid, the Chairman said the time hadcome to deal with the problem of apartheid inconjunction with other political situations insouthern Africa. Since first proposed in 1967,the idea had received growing support frommany sources including the South African lib-eration movements, which had recognized theneed for co-ordinating their efforts in the com-mon struggle. The Chairman further stated thatthe interrelationship of southern African prob-lems had been clearly demonstrated in theUnited Nations whenever attempts had beenmade to deal piecemeal with the questions ofNamibia, Southern Rhodesia and the territoriesunder Portuguese domination.

In the present circumstances, the only alter-natives open to the non-white population wereto accept the status quo and remain perma-nently enslaved or to pursue their resort toforce, the Chairman continued. The interna-tional community should provide the thirdalternative—a peaceful and speedy solution ofthe problem. The fact that some special inter-ests of certain powerful States were affected didnot justify inaction by the Organization.

During the debate in the Special PoliticalCommittee, there was unanimous condemna-tion of the South African Government's policiesof apartheid as a violation of the principles of

the United Nations Charter, as well as theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.

A majority of the Members deplored thefailure of the United Nations to take effectivemeasures to end the policy of apartheid, main-taining that the responsibility for such failurerested with the main trading partners of SouthAfrica. They contended that by refusing toimplement United Nations resolutions callingfor the severence of economic and political tieswith South Africa, the main trading partnersof that country—all of them Members of theUnited Nations—had ensured the survival ofthe apartheid régime. Those countries, theystated, had given more weight to economicconsiderations than to moral principles, andtheir refusal to co-operate in implementingUnited Nations resolutions had not only em-boldened South Africa to assume a defiantattitude towards the United Nations but wasalso undermining the prestige and authority ofthe Organization.

The representative of the USSR declaredthat South Africa's Western trading partnershad not only failed to implement United Na-tions resolutions, but had recently increasedcollaboration with the South African régime,thereby undermining the efforts of those Stateswhich had made economic sacrifices to complywith those resolutions. During the period from1962 to 1968, he said. South Africa had in-creased its imports from the United Kingdomby 47 per cent, from the United States by 98per cent and from the Federal Republic ofGermany by 149 per cent, while its exports tothose countries had increased by 97 per cent.33 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. SevenWestern countries, principal among which werethe United Kingdom, the United States andthe Federal Republic of Germany, had ab-sorbed 75 per cent of South Africa's exporttrade.

With such powerful support, the USSR repre-sentative continued, South Africa found it easyto go on flouting United Nations resolutions.He urged that the General Assembly shouldtherefore call upon that country's main tradingpartners unconditionally to end any political,economic, military or other assistance.

A number of representatives—among themthose of Cyprus, Ecuador. India, Iraq, Jamaica,Morocco, Nepal,, the Philippines and Sierra


Leone—recalling that the General Assemblyhad drawn the attention of the Security Coun-cil to the grave situation in South Africa, urgedthat the Council should resume urgently theconsideration of the question of apartheid inthe light of Chapter VII of the United NationsCharter.6

The representative of Norway held thateconomic sanctions and other measures recom-mended by the General Assembly and SecurityCouncil had failed because they had been non-obligatory. To be effective, they must be com-pulsory. Caution should be exercised in advo-cating them as at present they did not seem tohave the desired effect.

In the view of the representative of Malawi,resolutions on apartheid adopted by the UnitedNations had had no practical value, principallybecause they were not supported by the onlycountries with the power to coerce South Africainto changing its apartheid policies. Assumingthe impossibility of effective sanctions, Malawisubmitted that the General Assembly shoulddiscard the over-belligerent resolutions of re-cent sessions. Continued empty threats wouldonly produce the negative results of creatingin white South Africans an attitude of mindcomparable to the "psychosis of the besieged."Opponents must always be left room for with-drawal from stated positions with the minimumloss of face, he said. Malawi favoured a resolu-tion which, while reiterating unequivocal con-demnation of apartheid, would avoid showingan antagonistic attitude to South Africa andprovide for assistance to black South Africansin their efforts towards self-organization and formeasures to influence the white South Africans.

The United States representative said hisGovernment had repeatedly urged the SouthAfrican Government to change its racial poli-cies, warned it of the dangers of its course andenforced the arms embargo. His Governmentwas not convinced that sanctions taken underChapter VII of the Charter would be effectiveeither economically or politically. Their effectin the long run would depend on how long thepresent and potential trading partners—and notonly South Africa's major trading partners—could be expected to co-operate. The applica-tion of sanctions would only complicate thesituation and claim as its first victims the non-white population. Pressure must be maintained 6 See footnote 2.

against South Africa, he said, but in practicaland peaceful ways. It was his view that theprocess of evolution in South Africa would belong and hard. It involved changing not merelya policy, but the hearts and minds of men andof bringing about acceptance of realities.

The United Kingdom maintained that aresolution which could be implemented by alland showed that all participants in the UnitedNations debates agreed that apartheid was ahateful political and social system would bemuch more effective than some strong resolu-tion on which there was dissent.

The representative of Italy insisted that onlypeaceful means were suitable for solving theproblems of apartheid. He strongly urged thatrather than isolate South Africa, all possibleways of communicating with it should beopened, so that its people could benefit fromcontact with the ideas and ways of life offreedom-loving countries. Imposing economicsanctions would raise various problems for theUnited Nations, he believed. Italy did not seehow some measures proposed could bring aboutthe complex transformation that would replacethe policy of apartheid with one of social har-mony. Notwithstanding these views, Italy wouldabide by any decision taken with due respectfor the Organization's Charter.

A number of speakers, among them therepresentatives of Algeria, the Democratic Re-public of the Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Libya,Mauritania, Nepal, Romania, Somalia, theUnited Arab Republic and Yugoslavia, stressedthe interrelationship of the problems of south-ern Africa. They maintained that the SouthAfrican Government was attempting to extendthe system of apartheid to neighbouring terri-tories. It was continuing not only to occupyNamibia illegally, but also to implement itspolicy of "separate homelands" in that terri-tory. South Africa, they said, was also encour-aging and collaborating with the racist minorityregime in Salisbury to defeat the purpose ofthe economic sanctions against Southern Rho-desia. By strengthening the position of its Por-tuguese and Southern Rhodesian partners, theSouth African Government was aiming atsecuring white minority domination over not


only South Africa, but over the whole of south-ern Africa as well.

The representatives of Algeria, Libya, Ni-geria, Somalia, Syria, the United Republic ofTanzania, and Zambia were among those whoargued that the South African liberation move-ments had no choice but to resort to armedstruggle since all avenues for peaceful settle-ment had been tried to no avail. They saidthat since Member States had recognized thelegitimacy of the struggle of the oppressed non-white majority in South Africa for their inalien-able rights to freedom and justice, it wasincumbent on those Member States to providethe South African liberation movements withadequate moral, political and financial assist-ance.

In this connexion, support was expressed fora recommendation of the Special Committeeon Apartheid that the international communityshould provide greater assistance to the op-pressed people of South Africa and their move-ment for liberation in their legitimate struggle.

Numerous representatives, including those ofAfghanistan, Bulgaria, Burma, Cameroon, theCentral African Republic, Chile, the Demo-cratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Ghana,Italy, Japan, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Mali,Mauritania, Norway, the Philippines, Romania,Rwanda, Togo and Uganda, saw in the Mani-festo on Southern Africa, adopted by theOrganization of African Unity (OAU) in Sep-tember 1969, a new gleam of hope towards apeaceful solution of the problem of apartheid.(See pp. 147-52 for summary of the Manifestoand General Assembly resolution thereon.)

The Manifesto, these Members stated, re-affirmed the desire of the African States, intheir pursuit of the universal principles ofhuman equality and dignity and of basic humanrights, including the right to self-determination,to restore those principles to southern Africa bypeaceful means. While some representatives laidemphasis on the peaceful approach advocatedby the Manifesto, others stated that it had notrecommended dialogue with South Africa un-conditionally, but had simply stated that suchdialogue was possible on the proviso that SouthAfrica recognized the rights of the majority ofits population and began to secure those rightsfor them. It was emphasized by various speak-ers that the Manifesto had reaffirmed the com-

mitment of OAU to the liberation of all inhabi-tants of Africa, black and white alike.

Another aspect discussed was the dissemina-tion of information on apartheid. ManyMembers, among them Afghanistan, Brazil,Finland, Poland, Sweden and Turkey, stressedthe importance of the dissemination of suchinformation and expressed support for activitiesaimed at promoting greater international aware-ness not only of the evils of apartheid, but alsoof securing better understanding of the effortsof the international community to eradicateapartheid.

Burma held that the dissemination of infor-mation should be directed particularly at themasses of the people in the countries whichwere South Africa's major trading partners inorder that they might bring pressure to bearon their Governments and thus prevent themfrom supporting the South African Govern-ment's apartheid policies.

Morocco suggested that an information cen-tre, financed from voluntary contributions, beset up to work in collaboration with theSecretary-General, the Special Committee onApartheid, OAU, national committees and thenon-governmental organizations.

Cyprus reiterated a suggestion made previ-ously that national committees be establishedin each Member State to enlighten publicopinion on the evils of apartheid; Sweden pro-posed that more effective information cam-paigns might be launched by voluntary organi-zations, and particularly by churches, with theco-operation of the United Nations. Sweden'srepresentative further drew attention to theproposal for the organization of broadcasts toSouth Africa through the establishment of aUnited Nations-operated radio station.

A representative of the African NationalCongress, Robert Resha, who was granted ahearing by the Special Political Committee on5 November 1969, reviewed the history ofefforts made since 1912 by the African NationalCongress to defend the rights of the Africanpeople by non-violent methods and the Con-gress' decision in 1961, in the face of the SouthAfrican regime's contempt, to add to its formsof struggle that of armed combat. He believedthat the United Nations was in duty bound tosupport the non-white South African popula-tion's struggle, on the one hand, because such


support would be consistent with the principlesof the United Nations Charter, and on the otherhand, because the action of the forces that weresupporting the oppressors should be counter-acted.

Rejecting the argument that sanctions wereimpracticable, he suggested that for sanctionsto be effective, the United Nations must takedisciplinary action against those States which,in violation of Chapter VII of the Charter,were providing South Africa with militaryequipment and financial assistance. Further-more, he said, the fate of political prisoners, allof whom were leaders and activists who de-fended the ideals of the United Nations, shouldcommand the particular attention of the Organ-ization, whose former resolutions calling fortheir release had gone unheeded. Although theAfrican National Congress relied on UnitedNations assistance, he concluded, it was con-vinced that the struggle for emancipation ofthe South African people would be fought andwon by the African people themselves.

Two draft resolutions were approved by theSpecial Political Committee and adopted bythe General Assembly. The first—resolution2506 A (XXIV)—was sponsored, as amended,by the following 46 Member States: Afghani-stan, Algeria, Burma, Burundi, the Congo(Brazzaville), the Democratic Republic of theCongo, Cyprus, Dahomey, Ethiopia, Ghana,Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq,Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar,Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mo-rocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, thePhilippines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia,Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia,Uganda, the United Arab Republic, the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen,Yugoslavia and Zambia.

By the operative part of resolution 2506 A(XXIV), the General Asembly: (1) con-demned the Government of South Africa for itsrefusal to comply with the resolutions of theGeneral Assembly and the Security Councilcalling for an end to the oppression and perse-cution of all persons opposing the policies ofapartheid; (2) further condemned the Govern-ment of South Africa for its repressive actsagainst the political movement of the oppressedpeople of South Africa and, in particular, for

its enactment of the Terrorism Act, 1967; (3)urged all States and organizations to exertevery appropriate effort to secure the uncon-ditional release of all political prisoners andpersons subjected to restrictions for opposingapartheid; (4) reiterated that freedom fighterstaken prisoner in the course of their legitimatestruggle: for liberation should be extended hu-mane treatment in accordance with the GenevaConvention of 12 August 1949 relative to pris-oners of war; and (5) expressed solidarity withall those persecuted in South Africa for theiropposition to apartheid.

The Special Political Committee approvedthe revised draft resolution as a whole on 14November 1969, by a roll-call vote of 101 to 1,with 4 abstentions, following separate votes ap-proving operative paragraphs 2 (condemningthe South African Government for repressiveacts) and 4 (reiterating that freedom fightersshould be extended humane treatment).

On 21 November, the Assembly adopted thetext by 101 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARYREFERENCES below.)

Speaking before the vote was taken, therepresentative of Canada expressed his coun-try's concern at the continuing consolidation ofapartheid and its spread to other parts ofAfrica. Racial discrimination, manifested in theformalized doctrine of apartheid, was totallyabhorrent and might lead to bloodshed unlessreason intervened. Majority support for theresolution, he added, would marshal worldopinion in favour of the unconditional libera-tion of the opponents of apartheid. Canadasupported the draft resolution on the under-standing that the phrase "freedom fighters" inoperative paragraph 4 referred to all opponentsof apartheid.

The representative of the United Kingdomstated that his Government interpreted thereference to the Geneva Convention of 1949, inoperative paragraph 4 of the draft, in the lightof the resolution adopted by the twenty-firstInternational Conference of the Red Cross atIstanbul, Turkey, which had called upon "allauthorities in armed conflict to abide by theConvention." The United Kingdom represent-ative noted that efforts to obtain political free-dom and justice were legitimate and should be

encouraged when pursued by peaceful means,but he regretted the use of "freedom fighters"instead of "national movements" in the draft.

Commenting on the United Kingdom's ob-jection to the use of the expression "freedomfighters," the representative of Hungary saidthis revealed that the United Kingdom re-mained faithful to its colonialist policy and wasopposed to any fight for the liberation of colo-nial and oppressed peoples.

The second draft resolution was sponsoredby 42 Members, as follows: Afghanistan, Al-geria, Burma, Burundi, the Congo (Brazzaville),the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethi-opia, Ghana, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indo-nesia, Iraq. Jordan. Kenya, Kuwait, Libya,Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal,Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines,Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia,Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia,Uganda, the United Arab Republic, the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania. Upper Volta, Yemen,Yugoslavia and Zambia.

The text, as revised by the sponsors, wasapproved by the Special Political Committeeon 14 November 1969 by a roll-call vote of 83to 4, with 20 abstentions. On 21 November, theAssembly adopted it as resolution 2506 B(XXIV) by a vote of 80 to 5, with 23 absten-tions.

The Assembly thereby:(1) reaffirmed its resolution 2396(XXIII)

of 2 December 19687 and other resolutions ofthe General Assembly on the question ofapartheid',

(2) reiterated its condemnation of the poli-cies of apartheid practised by the Governmentof South Africa as a crime against humanity;

(3) reaffirmed its recognition of the legiti-macy of the struggle of the oppressed peopleof South Africa for the exercise of their in-alienable right of self-determination and theirattainment of majority rule based on universalsuffrage ;

(4) urged all States and organizations to pro-vide increased assistance to the national move-ment of the oppressed people of South Africain the light of the recommendations containedin the report of the Special Committee onApartheid;

(5) invited all States, in recognition of their


obligations under the United Nations Charterand in support of the legitimate struggle of theoppressed people of South Africa to: (a) de-sist from collaborating with the South AfricanGovernment by taking steps to prohibit financialand economic interests under their nationaljurisdiction from co-operating with the SouthAfrican Government and companies registeredin South Africa; (b) prohibit airlines andshipping lines registered in their countries fromproviding services to and from South Africaand to deny all facilities to air flights and ship-ping services to and from South Africa; (c]refrain from extending loans, investments andtechnical assistance to the South African Gov-ernment and companies registered in SouthAfrica; (d] take appropriate measures to dis-suade the main trading partners of SouthAfrica and economic and financial interestsfrom collaborating with the South AfricanGovernment and companies registered in SouthAfrica ;

(6) called upon all States to implement fullyand scrupulously the provisions of the SecurityCouncil resolutions concerning the embargo onthe supplying of arms and other military equip-ment to the South African Government;

(7) called upon all States to desist from pro-viding the South African Government withtechnical and other assistance for the manufac-ture of arms, ammunition and military vehicles :

(8) called upon all organs of the UnitedNations, the specialized agencies and other in-ternational organizations to refrain from extend-ing facilities to banks and other financial insti-tutions which provided assistance to the SouthAfrican Government and to companies regis-tered in South Africa;

(9) drew the attention of the Security Coun-cil to the grave situation in South Africa, andin southern Africa as a whole, and recommendedto the Security Council that it resume urgentlyconsideration of the question of apartheid witha view to adopting effective measures, includingthose under Chapter VII of the United Na-tions Charter,8 to eliminate the threat to inter-national peace and security posed by the situ-ation;

7 See footnote 4.8 See footnote 2,


(10) urged all specialized agencies of theUnited Nations and other international organi-zations to withhold the benefits of internationalco-operation from the South African Govern-ment so long as it persisted in its policies ofapartheid;

(11) invited all States and organizations toobserve the International Day for the Elimi-nation of Racial Discrimination on 21 March1970—the tenth anniversary of the Sharpevillemassacre—in solidarity with the oppressed peo-ple of South Africa, and to make special con-tributions on that day in support of the struggleagainst apartheid;

(12) requested the Special Committee onApartheid to: (a) take additional steps to pro-mote assistance to the national movement ofthe oppressed people of South Africa, in con-sultation with the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations and the Organization of Afri-can Unity; (6) hold consultations with repre-sentatives of that movement on the variousaspects of the question; (c) take further steps,including holding of joint meetings with otherappropriate United Nations organs, to increaseits co-operation with the specialized agenciesand non-governmental organizations concernedwith the problems of southern Africa; and

(13) requested the Secretary-General andMember States to intensify dissemination of in-formation on the problems of the policies ofapartheid of the South African Government inthe light of the recommendations in the reportof the Special Committee on Apartheid.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARYREFERENCES below.)

Canada and the United States, explainingabstention on the resolution, said they couldnot agree that the present situation in SouthAfrica was a threat to international peace andsecurity calling for action under Chapter VIIof the United Nations Charter. They consid-ered certain provisions impractical or unrealis-tic, the United States, for instance, citing theparagraph which requested States to prohibitair and shipping lines of their registry fromproviding service to and from South Africa andto deny facilities to such services to and fromSouth Africa. The United States, representativedeclared that such too far-reaching proposalscould prove detrimental to the people of SouthAfrica and to the United Nations.

The United Kingdom believed that parts ofthe resolution could be interpreted as encourag-ing and assisting the use of force and seemedto usurp the functions of the Security Council.

Madagascar said it could not accept the ideaof applying compulsory measures upon whichonly the Security Council could decide.

Also having abstained, Sweden reaffirmed itssupport for the objectives of the resolution andfor the appeal to States to implement SecurityCouncil resolutions concerning the embargo onarms and military equipment. Sweden, how-ever,was convinced that the effectiveness ofsuch measures as those recommended in oper-ative paragraph 5 (prohibiting financial andeconomic co-operation) depended on a deci-sion by the Security Council. Although notopposed to economic sanctions, Sweden fearedthat, having been decided upon in such circum-stances by the Assembly, they would be counter-productive because they would not be respectedby the. majority of the Members.

Norway and Denmark also opposed severalof the same recommendations in the convictionthat only the Security Council was competent todecide on economic sanctions and in the fearthat they would be ineffective.

France said it had abstained because partsof the resolution repeated provisions on whichit had previously abstained. Such an abstentioncould not in any way be interpreted as a signof acquiescence in the policy of apartheid, whichthe French Government had often and une-quivocally condemned. By various actions, itsrepresentative stated, France had shown its con-cern for the plight of those persecuted for theiropposition to apartheid.

The representative of Pakistan, replying tothese various objections on behalf of the spon-sors, recalled that the representatives of theUnited States, Canada and the United King-dom had said economic measures were notpractical and asked what then were practicalmeasures. It could not be said that the SouthAfrican Government would now enter into adialogue in the light of the abortive history ofthat idea. He added that as for the doubtsexpressed regarding the recommendation madein the resolution for Security Council action,the text had not indicated what action theCouncil should take and the sponsors believedthey were within their competence in making


the recommendation under Article 11 of theUnited Nations Charter.9

OTHER GENERAL ASSEMBLY DECISIONS

The General Assembly also adopted at itstwenty-fourth session a number of other resolu-tions which referred to apartheid and to SouthAfrica. These are described below.

DECLARATION ON GRANTING INDEPENDENCETO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES

On 11 December 1969, the Assembly adopteda resolution (2548(XXIV)) on the questionof implementing the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples.10 The preamble of the resolution con-tained a statement that the continuation ofcolonialism and its manifestations, includingracism, apartheid and activities of foreigneconomic and other interests which exploitedcolonial peoples, and the attempts of some colo-nial powers to suppress national liberation move-ments were incompatible with the UnitedNations Charter, the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights and the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples. The preamble also containeda statement whereby the Assembly deplored theattitude of certain States which defied UnitedNations resolutions and continued to co-operatewith the Governments of Portugal and SouthAfrica and with the illegal régime in SouthernRhodesia.

By the operative part of the resolution, theAssembly, among other things, declared thatthe continuation of colonial rule threatened in-ternational peace and security and that thepractice of apartheid and all forms of racialdiscrimination constituted a crime against hu-manity. It requested all States, as well as thespecialized agencies and international institu-tions, to withhold assistance of any kind fromthe Governments of Portugal and South Africaand from the illegal racist minority regime inSouthern Rhodesia until they renounced theirpolicy of colonial domination and racial dis-crimination. (For further details, see pp.648-50.)

MANIFESTO ON SOUTHERN AFRICA,On 20 November 1969, the General Assembly

adopted a resolution (2505 (XXIV)) noting

that it had received the Manifesto on SouthernAfrica adopted by the Assembly of Heads ofState and Government of the Organization ofAfrican Unity (OAU) at its sixth ordinary ses-sion in September 1969.

By the resolution, the General Assembly, con-vinced of the need for intensifying internationalefforts for the elimination of apartheid, racialdiscrimination and colonialism in order thatpeace and security in southern Africa be as-sured, (1) welcomed the Manifesto on South-ern Africa and recommended it to the attentionof all States and all peoples; and (2) expressedonce again the firm intention of the UnitedNations, acting in co-operation with OAU, tointensify its efforts to find a solution to thegrave situation in southern Africa. (For furtherdetails, see pp. 147-52.)

MEASURES TO COMBAT RACIALDISCRIMINATION, Apartheid ANDSEGREGATION IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

Two resolutions on measures for effectivelycombating racial discrimination, apartheid andsegregation in southern Africa were adopted atthe twenty-fourth session on the recommenda-tion of the Assembly's Third (Social, Humani-tarian and Cultural) Committee.

By resolution 2547 A (XXIV) of 11 Decem-ber 1969, the General Assembly, among otherthings, reaffirmed its recognition of the legiti-macy of the struggle by the opponents of apart-heid, racial discrimination and Portuguesecolonialism in southern Africa to realize theirhuman rights and fundamental freedoms ; con-demned the Government of South Africa forthe inhuman and degrading treatment andtorture meted out to political prisoners and de-tainees and to captured freedom fighters inSouth Africa and Namibia; further condemnedthe South African Government for its refusalto permit an impartial inquiry into the deathsof political prisoners and detainees; and stronglycensured the South African Government forits illegal occupation of Namibia.

By other provisions of the resolution, theGeneral Assembly called upon the South Afri-

9 For text of Article 11 of the Charter, see APPEN-

DIX II.10 See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50, for text of resolution

1514(XV) containing the text of the Declaration.


can Government to observe the te:rm.s of theGeneva Convention relative to the Treatmentof Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949; re-quested the Secretary-General to establish, main-tain and publicize an up-to-date register ofpersons subjected to imprisonment, detention,banishment and other restrictions, and of per-sons victimized and brutalized for their oppo-sition to apartheid and racial discrimination,as well as of captured freedom fighters held inSouth Africa, Namibia, Southern Rhodesia,Angola, Mozambique, Guinea (Bissau), andSao Tome.

The Assembly also requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Committeeof Trustees, to study the question of enlargingthe scope of the United Nations Trust Fundfor South Africa to include all persons in South-ern Rhodesia and Namibia persecuted underrepressive and discriminatory legislation, as wellas persons victimized by Portuguese colonialpractices in Africa; and appealed to all Gov-ernments to contribute more generously to theUnited Nations Trust Fund for South Africaand to voluntary organizations active in provid-ing assistance to victims of apartheid and racialdiscrimination in southern Africa. (See alsopp. 505-6 and pp. 110-12.)

By resolution 2547 B (XXIV) of 15 Decem-ber 1969, the General Assembly adopted thedraft resolution recommended to it by the Eco-nomic and Social Council on 6 June 1969. (Seeabove, page 97, for summary of resolution andsee pp. 502-6 for further details.)

MEASURES TO BE TAKEN AGAINSTNAZISM AND RACIAL INTOLERANCE

On 11 December 1969, the General Assemblyadopted resolution 2545 (XXIV) as recom-mended to it by the Economic and Social Coun-cil on 6 June 1969, on measures to be takenagainst nazism and racial intolerance.

(For summary of resolution, see above, page97; for additional details, see pp. 489-91.)

PROGRAMME TO OBSERVEINTERNATIONAL YEAR TO COMBAT RACISM

By the terms of another resolution (2544(XXIV)), adopted on 11 December 1969, the

General Assembly designated the year 1971 asthe International Year for Action to CombatRacism and Racial Discrimination. It consid-ered that the Year should be observed in thename of the ever-growing struggle against racialdiscrimination in all its forms and manifesta-tions and in the name of international solidaritywith those struggling against racism. The As-sembly also appealed urgently to all States tointensify and expand their efforts to eradicateracial discrimination, including the policy ofapartheid, nazism and all of its contemporaryforms. (For further details, see pp. 484-86.)

CO-OPERATION OF SPECIALIZED AGENCIESAnother Assembly resolution (2555 (XXIV) ),

adopted on 12 December 1969 on the recom-mendation of the Assembly's Fourth Committee,called for the co-operation of the specializedagencies, the International Atomic EnergyAgency and other international agencies asso-ciated with the United Nations to extend theirfull co-operation to the Organization in theachievement of the objectives and provisionsof the General Assembly's resolution of 14 De-cember 1960 on the granting of independenceto colonial countries and peoples11 and otherrelevant resolutions. Under other provisions ofthe text, the Assembly recommended that thespecialized agencies and international institu-tions concerned, as well as the various pro-grammes within the United Nations system,should take measures individually and in col-laboration with one another to increase thescope of their assistance to refugees from colo-nial territories and to the peoples struggling toliberate themselves from colonial rule. It urgedthem—in particular, the International Bank forReconstruction and Development and the In-ternational Monetary Fund—to take all neces-sary steps to withhold from the Governmentsof Portugal and South Africa financial, eco-nomic, technical and other assistance until theyrenounced their policies of racial discriminationand colonial domination. (For further details,see page 650.)

11 Ibid.



107

REPORT OF SPECIALCOMMITTEE ON APARTHEIDA/7625 (S/9473). Report of Special Committee on

Policies of Apartheid of Government of Republic ofSouth Africa.

A/7625/Rev.l, Annexes. Report of Special Committeeon Apartheid. Annex I: List of representatives; An-nex II: Review of developments in South Africasince 4 October 1968; Annex III: Special Commit-tee documents issued, October 1968-7 October 1969.

A/7625/Rev.l, Chapter II F. Report of Special Com-mittee on Apartheid. Commemoration of Interna-tional Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

DECISIONS OF ECONOMICAND SOCIAL COUNCIL

STUDY OF Apartheid AND RACIALDISCRIMINATION IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL—46TH SESSIONSocial Committee, meetings 617, 619-621, 623, 624,

626.Plenary Meeting 1602.

E/4621. Report on 25th session of Commission on Hu-man Rights, Chapter IV A and Chapter XVIII,resolution 4(XXV).

E/4621, Chapter XIX. Draft resolution I, as recom-mended by Commission, and as amended by UnitedKingdom, E/AC.7/L.557, adopted unanimously bySocial Committee on 29 May 1969, meeting 624.

E/AC.7/L.557. United Kingdom: amendment to draftresolution I of Commission on Human Rights.

E/4693. Report of Social Committee, draft resolu-tion I.

RESOLUTION 1414(xlvi), as recommended by SocialCommittee, E/4693, adopted unanimously by Coun-cil on 6 June 1969, meeting 1602.

The Economic and Social Council,Noting that questions of violation of human rights

and fundamental freedoms particularly manifested inpolicies of racial discrimination, apartheid and segre-gation in southern Africa are being considered byvarious United Nations organs, including subsidiarybodies of the Council, and a number of specializedagencies,

Mindful of the fact that there is proliferation andduplication in the efforts to combat policies of racialdiscrimination, apartheid and segregation which mustbe avoided if the result which the international com-munity desires from that effort is to be achieved,

Recognizing, therefore, the need to co-ordinate theactivities of the various organizations in the UnitedNations system and of its organs with respect toapartheid and racial segregation in southern Africa,

1. Requests the Secretary-General to prepare aconcise report containing:

( a ) The terms of reference of the different UnitedNations organs dealing at present with violations of

human rights and fundamental freedoms in southernAfrica, including the terms of reference of any of theirsubsidiary ad hoc or standing committees, workinggroups or other bodies;

(b) A brief survey of the activities so far under-taken by the different organs designed to bring aboutrespect for human rights and fundamental freedoms insouthern Africa ;

( c ) A statement of the activities undertaken by thespecialized agencies, particularly the International La-bour Organisation and the United Nations Education-al, Scientific and Cultural Organization, in the samefield;

2. Invites the specialized agencies concerned to co-operate with the Secretary-General in the preparationof his report;

3. Further requests the Secretary-General to sub-mit his report to the Economic and Social Council, atits forty-eighth session;

4. Decides to consider this matter further at itsforty-eighth session.

UNITED NATIONS TRUSTFUND FOR SOUTH AFRICA

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL—46TH SESSIONSocial Committee, meetings 627, 628.Plenary Meeting 1602.

E/4621. Report on 25th session of Commission on Hu-man Rights, Chapter IV A, resolution 5 (XXV).

E/4693. Report of Social Committee, para. 31 (b),recommendation (e).

E/4715. Resolutions adopted by Economic and SocialCouncil at its 46th session, 12 May-6 June 1969.Other decisions, p. 19, recommendation (e).

CONSIDERATION BYGENERAL ASSEMBLY

GENERAL ASPECTS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY—24TH SESSIONSpecial Political Committee, meetings 645-664.Fifth Committee, meeting 1332.Plenary Meetings 1758, 1816.

A/7516 (S/9019). Letter of 20 February 1969 fromChairman of Special Committee on Policies ofApartheid of Government of Republic of SouthAfrica.

A/7524 (S/9050). Letter of 5 March 1969 fromUnited States.

A/7538 and Add. 1-3. Note by Secretary-General. Re-plies received from Governments.

A/7601. Annual report of Secretary-General on workof the Organization, 16 June 1968-15 June 1969,Chapter III F.

A/7601/Add.l. Introduction to annual report of Sec-retary-General, September 1969, Chapter VII.

A/7602. Report of Security Council to General Assem-bly, 16 July 1968-15 July 1969, part IV, Chapter 9.


A/7625/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee on Poli-cies of Apartheid of Government of Republic ofSouth Africa.

A/7715. United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa.Report of Secretary-General.

A/SPC/L.172 and Rev.l and Rev.I/Add.]. Afghani-stan, Algeria, Burma, Burundi, Congo (Brazzaville),Democratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Dahomey,Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia,Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar,Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco,Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, SaudiArabia, Senegal, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan,Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Repub-lic, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta,Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia: draft resolution andrevision.

A/SPC/L.172/Rev.2. Revised draft re-solution spon-sored by 45 powers listed above and, in addition, byGuinea, approved by Special Political Committee on14 November 1969, meeting 664, by roll-call vote of101 to 1, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Aus-tria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Can-ada, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo(Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Congo, CostaRica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Den-mark, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland., France,Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti,Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ire-land, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya,Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg,Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania,Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal,Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Phil-ippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia,Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia. South-ern Yemen, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand,Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR,USSR, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom,United Republic of Tanzania, United States, UpperVolta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen. Yugoslavia,Zambia.

Against: Portugal.Abstaining: Australia, Malawi, New Zealand,

Peru.

A/7773. Report of Special Political Committee, draftresolution A.

RESOLUTION 2506A(xxiv), as proposed by SpecialPolitical Committee, A/7773, adopted by Assemblyon 21 November 1969, meeting 1816, by 101 votesto 2, with 6 abstentions.

The General Assembly,Taking note of the report of the Special Committee

on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of theRepublic of South Africa and the report of the Com-mittee of Trustees of the United Nations Trust Fundfor South Africa,

Bearing in mind its resolutions calling on the Gov-ernment of South Africa to liberate all persons impris-oned, interned or subjected to other restrictions fortheir opposition to apartheid,

Noting with grave concern that the Government ofSouth Africa has continued to persecute the opponentsof apartheid, that detainees are subjected to brutaltreatment and that several such persons have died fol-lowing this inhuman treatment,

Convinced that such actions further aggravatethe deteriorating situation in South Africa,

1. Condemns the Government of South Africa forits refusal to comply with the resolutions of the Gen-eral Assembly and the Security Council calling for anend to the oppression and persecution of all personsopposing the policies of apartheid;

2. Further condemns the Government of SouthAfrica for its repressive acts against the political move-ment of the oppressed people of South Africa and, inparticular, for its enactment of the Terrorism Act,1967;

3. Urges all States and organizations to exert everyappropriate effort to secure the unconditional releaseof all political prisoners and persons subjected to re-strictions for opposing apartheid;

4. Reiterates that freedom fighters who are takenprisoner in the course of their legitimate struggle forliberation should be extended humane treatment inaccordance with the humanitarian principles laiddown in the Geneva Convention relative to the Treat-ment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949;

5. Expresses solidarity with all those persecuted inSouth Africa for their opposition to apartheid.

A/SPC/L.173 and Add.l. Afghanistan, Algeria, Burma,Burundi, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Repub-lic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia,Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Mali, Mauri-tania, Mongolia. Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria,Pakistan, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia,Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Re-public, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta,Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia: draft resolution.

A/SPC/L.173/Rev.l. Afghanistan, Algeria, Burma,Burundi, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Repub-lic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Hungary,India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait,Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Ne-pal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda,Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Southern Yemen,Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United ArabRepublic, United Republic of Tanzania, UpperVolta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia: revised draftresolution, approved by Special Political Committeeon 14 November 1969, meeting 664, by roll-call voteof 83 to 4, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Austria,* Barba-dos, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi. Byelorus-sian SSR, Cameroon, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China,Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Repub-lic of Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia,Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana,


Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India,Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Jor-dan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mad-agascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania,Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Ni-ger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland,Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, SierraLeone, Singapore, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Su-dan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey,Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Re-public, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta,Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Australia, Portugal, United Kingdom,United States.

Abstaining: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland,Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi,Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden.

* The representative of Austria announced that hisdelegation had been instructed to abstain on the draftresolution. He therefore wished to record that his af-firmative vote had been cast in error.

A/SPC/L.174. Administrative and financial implica-tions of draft resolution contained in documentA/SPC/L.173. Statement by Secretary-General.

A/C.5/1262, A/7775, A/7778 and Corr.1. Adminis-trative and financial implications of draft resolutionB contained in report of Special Political Commit-tee, A/7773. Statement by Secretary-General andreports of Advisory Committee on Administrativeand Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) and Fifth Com-mittee.

A/7773. Report of Special Political Committee, draftresolution B.

RESOLUTION 2506B(xxiv), as proposed by SpecialPolitical Committee, A/7773, adopted by GeneralAssembly on 21 November 1969, meeting 1816, by80 votes to 5, with 23 abstentions.

The General Assembly,Recalling its resolutions and those of the Security

Council on the question of apartheid,Having considered the report of the Special Com-

mittee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Governmentof the Republic of South Africa,

Noting with concern that the Government of SouthAfrica continues to intensify and extend beyond theborders of South Africa its inhuman and aggressivepolicies of apartheid and that these policies have re-sulted in violent conflict,

Noting further that the Government of South Africa,in collaboration with the illegal racist minority régimein Southern Rhodesia and the Government of Portu-gal, continues to defy the United Nations and deniesthe peoples of southern Africa their inalienable rightto self-determination, equality and independence,

Convinced that the policies and actions of the Gov-ernment of South Africa are contrary to the obliga-tions of a Member State and constitute a grave threatto international peace and security,

Noting with regret that the collaboration between

the Government of South Africa and its main tradingpartners and certain financial and economic interestshas encouraged that Government to pursue its policiesof apartheid, thereby nullifying all efforts made so farby the United Nations to solve the problems,

Recognizing the obligations of the United Nationsto take urgent and effective measures to resolve thesituation in accordance with the purposes and princi-ples of the Charter,

Noting with interest the Manifesto on SouthernAfrica, adopted by the Assembly of Heads of Stateand Government of the Organization of African Unityat its sixth ordinary session,

Noting that the Security Council has not consideredthe problem of apartheid since 1964,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 2396(XXIII) of 2 De-cember 1968 and its other resolutions on the questionof apartheid;

2. Reiterates its condemnation of the policies ofapartheid practised by the Government of South Africaas a crime against humanity;

3. Reaffirms its recognition of the legitimacy ofthe struggle of the oppressed people of South Africafor the exercise of their inalienable right of self-deter-mination, and thus to attain majority rule based onuniversal suffrage;

4. Urges all States and organizations to provideincreased assistance to the national movement of theoppressed people of South Africa against the policiesof apartheid, in the light of the recommendations con-tained in the report of the Special Committee on thePolicies of Apartheid of the Government of the Re-public of South Africa;

5. Invites all States, in recognition of their obliga-tions under the Charter of the United Nations and insupport of the legitimate struggle of the oppressedpeople of South Africa:

(a) To desist from collaborating with the Govern-ment of South Africa, by taking steps to prohibitfinancial and economic interests under their nationaljurisdiction from co-operating with the Government ofSouth Africa and companies registered in South Africa;

(6) To prohibit airlines and shipping lines regis-tered in their countries from providing services to andfrom South Africa and to deny all facilities to airflights and shipping services to and from South Africa;

( c ) To refrain from extending loans, investmentsand technical assistance to the Government of SouthAfrica and companies registered in South Africa;

(d) To take appropriate measures to dissuade themain trading partners of South Africa and economicand financial interests from collaborating with theGovernment of South Africa and companies registeredin South Africa;

6. Calls upon all States to implement fully andscrupulously the provisions of the Security Councilresolutions concerning the embargo on the supplyingof arms and other military equipment to the Govern-ment of South Africa;

7. Calls upon all States to desist from providingthe Government of South Africa with technical andother assistance for the manufacture of arms, ammuni-tion and military vehicles;


8. Calls upon all organs of the United Nations,the specialized agencies and other international organi-zations to refrain from extending facilities to banksand other financial institutions which provide assist-ance to the Government of South Africa and to com-panies registered in South Africa;

9. Draws the attention of the Security Council tothe grave situation in South Africa, and in southernAfrica as a whole, and recommends the Council toresume urgently the consideration of the question ofapartheid with a view to adopting effective measures,including those under Chapter VII of the Charter, toeliminate the threat to international peace and securityposed by the situation;

10. Urges all specialized agencies and other inter-national organizations to withhold the benefits of in-ternational co-operation from the Government ofSouth Africa so long as it persists in its policies ofapartheid;

11. Invites all States and organizations to observewith appropriate ceremonies the International Day forthe Elimination of Racial Discrimination on 21 March1970—the tenth anniversary of the Sharpeville mas-sacre—in solidarity with the oppressed people of SouthAfrica, and to make special contributions on that dayin support of the struggle against apartheid;

12. Requests the Special Committee:(a) To take additional steps to promote assistance

to the national movement of the oppressed people ofSouth Africa against the policies of apartheid, in con-sultation with the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations and the Organization of African Unity;

(6) To hold consultations with representatives ofthis movement on various aspects of the question;

(c) To take further steps, including the holding ofjoint meetings with other appropriate organs of the

United Nations, to increase its co-operation and co-ordinate its efforts with such organs;

(d) To continue its co-operation with the special-ized agencies and non-governmental organizationsconcerned with the problems of southern Africa;

13. Requests the Secretary-General and MemberStates to intensify dissemination of information on theproblems of the policies of apartheid of the Govern-ment of South Africa, in the light of the recommen-dations set forth in paragraphs 155 to 160 of the re-port of the Special Committee.

A/7843. Question of violation of human rights andfundamental freedoms, including policies of racialdiscrimination and segregation and of apartheid, inall countries, with particular reference to colonialand other dependent countries and territories:measures for effectively combating racial discrim-ination and policies of apartheid in southern Africa.Note by Secretary-General.

OTHER DOCUMENTSS/9096. Letter of 18 March 1969 from Chairman of

Special Committee on Policies of Apartheid ofGovernment of Republic of South Africa.

S/9203. Letter of 9 May 1969 from Secretary-Generalto President of Security Council (transmitting rele-vant extracts of resolutions III and VIII adoptedby International Conference on Human Rights,Teheran, Iran, 22 April-13 May 1968).

S/9523. Letter of 2 December 1969 from Secretary-General.

Industrialization, Foreign Capital and Forced Labourin South Africa (ST/PSCA/SER.A/10). U.N.P.Sales No.: E.70.II.K.8.

United Nations Trust Fund for South AfricaREPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERALAND THE COMMITTEE OF TRUSTEES

The United Nations Trust Fund for SouthAfrica was established by the General Assem-bly on 15 December 1965 to make grants tovoluntary organizations,, Governments of hostcountries of refugees from South Africa, andother appropriate bodies towards: legal assist-ance to persons charged under discriminatoryand repressive legislation in South Africa; relieffor dependants of persons prosecuted by theGovernment of the Republic of South Africafor acts arising from opposition to the policyof apartheid; education of prisoners, their chil-dren and other dependants, and relief for refu-gees from South Africa.12

In a report of 17 October 1969 to the Gen-eral Assembly on the operation of the UnitedNations Trust Fund for South Africa, the Sec-

retary-General and the Committee of Trusteesof the Fund stated that since its last report, theFund had received contributions totalling$221,524 from 20 Governments; pledges of$34,100 from six Governments were outstand-ing. That brought the total of contributions tothe Fund since its inception to $856,949. Con-tributions and pledges made in 1969 are listedin the following table.

CONTRIBUTIONS AND PLEDGES MADE IN

1969 FOR TRUST FUND FOR SOUTH AFRICA

(in U.S. dollars)Belgium 20,000*Brazil 2,000Cambodia 2,000*Cyprus 240Denmark 53,209

12 See Y.U.N., 1965, pp. 115-16, for text of resolu-tion 2054 B (XX).


FinlandGhanaIranIrelandItalyItalyJapanLiberiaMalaysiaMauritaniaMongoliaMoroccoNepalNigeriaNorwayPhilippinesPolandSwedenTunisiaUSSRUnited Arab Republic

* Pledge

10,0001,0003.0001,500*2,500*2,500

10.0006,000*1,0002,100*

5003,972

5001,400

20,0143,5002,000

96,6893,0005,0002,000

Since its inception, grants made from theFund totalled $784,400. During 1969, fivegrants totalling $251,000 were made. The Com-mittee of Trustees had also been informed byGovernments of contributions totalling $126,000that had been made directly to non-govern-mental organizations engaged in relief andassistance to victims of apartheid.

The Committee of Trustees noted in its re-port that the financial requirements of volun-tary organizations for purposes within the termsof reference of the Trust Fund had continuedto increase because of the continued discrimina-tory and repressive actions of the Governmentof South Africa, notably the persecution ofpersons under the Terrorism Act of 1967. Ex-pressing the hope that more generous contribu-tions would be forthcoming, the Committee ofTrustees suggested that all Member States andorganizations should consider making annualspecial contributions on the International Dayfor the Elimination of Racial Discrimination(21 March) and that the Secretary-General berequested to take appropriate steps for widerdissemination of information on the continuedrepression of opponents of apartheid by theSouth African Government.


In 1969, at the twentv-fourth session of theGeneral Assembly, the Chairman of the Com-mittee of Trustees told the Assembly's Special

Political Committee, which was considering theSecretary-General's report, that the need forlegal defence and relief to families was increas-ing because the South African Government con-tinued to subject large numbers of people toimprisonment, detention, house arrest and ban-ishment. The Committee of Trustees hopedthat attempts by the South African Governmentto dissuade potential donors from contributingwould be firmly rejected. He maintained thatmembers of the Committee had made everyeffort to ensure that the Fund was used effi-ciently, and strictly for the purposes laid downby the General Assembly.

The Chairman of the Committee of Trusteesalso stated that the humanitarian assistance theTrust Fund provided was in no way a substi-tute for the political action required to solvethe political and social problems in SouthAfrica, but that it represented tangible proofof world-wide concern for the fate of thevictims of racial discrimination. The concernand assistance was highly appreciated by thosewho bore the brunt of the burden in the fightfor freedom, he said.

A number of delegations expressed continu-ing support for the work of the Trust Fund.No resolution on the Trust Fund fier se waspresented in the Special Political Committee;however, on the recommendation of the SpecialCommittee on the Policies of Apartheid of theGovernment of the Republic of South Africa,the Assembly, inter alia, took note of the reportof the Committee of Trustees of the UnitedNations Trust Fund for South Africa. (See. pp.107-8 for text of resolution 2506 A (XXIV)of 21 November 1969.)

Furthermore, on the recommendation of itsThird (Social. Humanitarian and Cultural)Committee, the Assemblv on 11 December 1969adopted resolution 2547A('XXIV). bv which.inter alia, it requested the Secretarv-General tostudv the question of enlarging the scope ofthe Trust Fund to cover all persons in theterritories of Southern Rhodesia and Namibiapersecuted under repressive and discriminatorylegislation, as well as affected persons who werevictims of Portugese colonial practices in Af-rica. By this resolution, the Assemblv also ap-pealed to all Governments to contribute moregenerously to the Fund. (See pp. 508-9 for textof resolution 2574 A (XXIV) of 11 December.)



GENERAL ASSEMBLY——24-TH SESSION

Special Political Committee, meetings 64.'5-664.Plenary Meetings 1758, 1816.

A/7715. Report of Secretary-General. Annex: Reportof Committee of Trustees of United Nations TrustFund for South Africa.

A/7773. Report of Special Political Committee, draftresolution A.

RESOLUTION 2506A(xxiv), as proposed by SpecialPolitical Committee, A/7773, adopted by Assemblyon 21 November 1969, meeting 1816, by 101 votesto 2, with 6 abstentions. [For text of resolution andsupporting documentation, see above, pp. 107-8.]

Third Committee, meetings 1697, 1699-1713.Plenary Meeting 1829.

A/7826. Report of Third Committee (on question ofviolation of human rights and fundamental free-doms, including policies of racial discrimination andsegregation and of apartheid, in all countries, withparticular reference to colonial and other dependentcountries and peoples), draft resolution II A.

RESOLUTION 2547 A fxxiv), as recommended by ThirdCommittee, A/7826, adopted by Assembly on 11December 1969, meeting 1829, by 87 votes to 1,with 23 abstentions. [For text of resolution and sup-porting documentation, see pp. 506-9.]

Education and Training Abroad of South Africans

there were 203 South Africans studying abroadin some 20 countries.

(For additional information on the Educa-tional and Training Programme for SouthernAfrica, see pp. 646-48.)

Under the consolidated United Nations Edu-cational and Training Programme for SouthernAfrica established by the General Assembly in1967,13 170 applications from South Africanswere received during the period 1 October 1968to 30 September 1969. Forty-two new awardswere made and another 161 awards were ex-tended. Thus, at the end of September 1969,

13 See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 649-50, text of resolution2 349 (XXII).

THE SITUATION IN SOUTHERN RHODESIA

The question of Southern Rhodesia continuedin 1969 to receive consideration by the SecurityCouncil, the General Assembly and the 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,as well as by the Economic and Social Counciland other United Nations organs.

These bodies were concerned with bringingto an end the white minority régime of lanSmith, which had unilaterally declared its inde-pendence from the United Kingdom on 11November 1965,14 and with enabling the Afri-can people of the territory to exercise theirbasic human rights, in particular their inalien-able right to freedom and independence inaccordance with the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples adopted by the General Assembly in1960.15

Also under consideration was the implementa-tion of the various decisions of the SecurityCouncil calling for sanctions against the. illegal

régime in Southern Rhodesia, particularlyCouncil resolution 253(1968) of 29 May 1968.16

By this resolution, the Council had, among otherthings, imposed more extensive mandatory eco-nomic sanctions against the illegal régime andemphasized the need for withdrawal of all con-sular and trade representation in Southern Rho-desia.

It had called upon all States to report to theSecretary-General on measures taken to imple-ment the resolution and had also decided toestablish a committee of the Security Council:(a) to examine such reports on implementationas were submitted by the Secretary-General;and (b) to seek from any States Members ofthe United Nations or members of the special-ized agencies such further information regard-ing the trade of that State or any activities bynationals of that State that might constitute an

1 4See Y.U.N., 1965, pp. 117-28, for details.15 See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50, text of resolution

1514(XV) containing the Declaration.16 See Y.U.N., 1968, pp. 152-54, text of resolution

253(1968).


evasion of the measures decided upon in theresolution. The Committee was appointed bythe Security Council in July 1968 and beganwork on 28 October. It submitted its first re-port on 30 December 1968.17

In 1969, this Committee, and the Secretary-General, continued to report on implementationof Council resolution 253(1968). The SecurityCouncil met in June, at the request of 60 Mem-ber States, to consider the question of SouthernRhodesia; a draft resolution proposed by fiveAfrican and Asian States failed to receive therequired majority of votes and was not adopted.

Decisions were, however, taken on variousaspects of the question by the Special Commit-tee of 24, the Commission on Human Rights,the Economic and Social Council and by theGeneral Assembly at its twenty-fourth sessionheld towards the end of 1969. Details of thesedecisions and other related matters are describedin the sections below.

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTSTO THE SECURITY COUNCIL

In his report of 28 August 1968 and fouraddenda,18 the Secretary-General had submitted86 replies he had received from Governments ofStates Members of the United Nations or mem-bers of the specialized agencies in connexionwith the implementation of the provisions ofSecurity Council resolution 253(1968) of 29May 1968.19

During 1969, in seven further addenda issuedrespectively on 30 January, 3 and 19 March,11 April, 6 and 17 June and 23 September,the Secretary-General submitted a total of 56original and additional replies. In the fifth andsixth addenda, the Secretary-General reportedthat, following the request of the Committeeestablished in pursuance of resolution 253(1968), he had, in November 1968 and January1969, issued further appeals to those Stateswhich had still not reported to do so withoutdelay, and had invited all States Members ofthe United Nations or members of the special-ized agencies to provide information on anyfurther measures taken by them since their lastreports.

On 18 February 1969, the Minister for For-eign Affairs of Portugal replied to a note of7 January from the Secretary-General in whichthe latter had drawn the attention of Portugal

to operative paragraph 10 of Security Councilresolution 253(1968), emphasizing the need forthe withdrawal of all consular and trade repre-sentation in Southern Rhodesia, in addition tothe provisions of operative paragraph 6 of Se-curity Council resolution 217(1965), whichcalled upon all States not to recognize the illegalauthority in Southern Rhodesia and not toentertain any diplomatic or other relations withit.20

The Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairsstated that at no time had Portugal informedthe Security Council that it had recognized asvalid the above-mentioned resolutions; instead,in view of certain doubts raised for it by thetexts of those resolutions, Portugal had soughtclarifications on them in seven notes sent to theSecretary-General and the Security Council be-tween 27 April 1966 and 2 December 1968, tonone of which it had received any reply.Consequently, pending the receipt of suchclarifications, Portugal considered itself ex-empted from taking a position on the resolu-tions in question.

The Foreign Minister confirmed that, with-out prejudice to the foregoing, Portugal had aConsulate General functioning in Salisbury,Southern Rhodesia, opened more than 40 yearsago, and had no intention of closing it down.He also drew the attention of the Security Coun-cil and the Secretary-General to the existencein Southern Rhodesia of the diplomatic repre-sentation of South Africa, and to consular mis-sions of 10 other countries, as well as to anofficial representation of the United Kingdom.In those circumstances, Portugal did not findany reason why only its consular representationshould be singled out.

Also on 18 February, the Minister for ForeignAffairs of Portugal replied to the Secretary-General's note of 6 January drawing Portugal'sattention to the continued maintenance of airservices in Southern Rhodesia by Portugueseairline companies, contrary to the provisions ofoperative paragraph 6 of Security Council reso-lution 253(1968). (In this paragraph, the Se-

17 Ib Id., pp. 139-40.1 8 Ibid., p. 139.19 See footnote 16.

20 See Y.U.N., 1965, p. 133, text of resolution217(1965) of 20 November 1965.


curity Council decided that all States Membersof the United Nations should prevent airlinecompanies constituted in their territories andaircraft of their registration or under charter totheir nationals from operating to or from South-ern Rhodesia and from linking up with anyairline company constituted or aircraft regis-tered in Southern Rhodesia.)

The Foreign Minister stated that Portugal'sattitude on the matter was based on the con-siderations contained in his letter on consularrepresentation quoted above. He confirmed that,without prejudice to those considerations, twoPortuguese airline companies continued to op-erate in Southern Rhodesia and had been func-tioning there for a long time. He drew the at-tention of the Secretary-General to the existenceof air connexions with Southern Rhodesia andagencies or delegations maintained there byother foreign companies. In those circumstances,Portugal did not find any reason why onlyPortuguese airline companies should be singledout in that connexion.

By a letter dated 10 June 1969, the Chairmanof the Special Committee of 24 transmitted thetext of a resolution adopted on that date bywhich the Special Committee, among otherthings, drew the Council's attention to thegravity of the situation arising from the inten-sification of suppressive activities against thepeople of Zimbabwe and from the danger ofaggression against neighbouring States, which itsaid constituted a threat to international peaceand security. The Special Committee furtherdrew the Council's attention to the urgentnecessity of applying certain measures envisagedunder Chapter VII of the Charter21 for widen-ing sanctions against Southern Rhodesia andimposing sanctions on South Africa and Portu-gal. (See below, pp. 122-23, for further de-tails.)

On 12 June, the Committee established inpursuance of Security Council resolution 253(1968) of 29 May 1968 submitted to the Se-curity Council its second report, covering itswork since the submission of its first report on30 December 1968. The Committee attached11 annexes to its report, including a note by theSecretariat containing an analysis of the tradeof Southern Rhodesia and statistical data cover-ing the year 1968, together with a United King-dom note assessing the effects of the sanctions.

The annexes also contained, among otherthings, comments received from 20 States toinquiries sent by the Secretary-General, at theCommittee's request, relating to the statisticaldata covering the first half of 1968 and theanalysis thereof which had been included inthe Committee's first report.

The report stated that in the course of 12meetings of the Committee., as well as in con-sultations by the Chairman with its members,the Committee had, in pursuance of the tasksassigned to it by the Security Council: (a) ex-amined the reports submitted by the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution253(1968); ( b ) considered the informationprovided by United Nations Member States ormember States of the specialized agencies inresponse to requests by the Committee, madethrough the Secretary-General, on a number ofmatters relating to trade with Southern Rho-desia, on airlines operating to and from South-ern Rhodesia and on consular trade repre-sentations; (e) examined information onimmigration into Southern Rhodesia madeavailable by the Secretariat at the request ofthe Committee; (d) considered the detailedtrade statistics of Southern Rhodesia for 1968,together with an analysis thereof prepared bythe Secretariat and a note by the United King-dom containing its assessment of the effects ofthe sanctions on the Southern Rhodesian econ-omy and the outlook for 1969; and (e) devotedconsiderable attention to investigating 13 spe-cific cases of suspected violations of the sanc-tion:; decided upon in resolution 253(1968).

The Committee noted that, according to theSecretary-General's report on the implementa-tion of resolution 253(1968), 97 States Membersof the United Nations or members of the spe-cialized agencies had, as at 6 June 1969, re-ported to him on the implementation of theresolution, whereas 37 had not so far replied toany of the communications from him on thematter.

The Committee noted that a great majorityhad reported that they were taking measuresto comply with the provisions of the SecurityCouncil's resolution or that they had no rela-tions of any kind with Southern Rhodesia.

11 For text of Chapter VII of the Charter, seeAPPENDIX II


Botswana, the Democratic Republic of theCongo, Malawi and Zambia had pointed outthe adverse effect on their economies of the sanc-tions against Southern Rhodesia. Certain States,however, the Committee further noted, wereeither not complying at all or were not yetcomplying fully with the measures imposed bythe Council.

On the basis of the facts available to it, theCommittee stated that the Governments ofSouth Africa and Portugal had not taken anymeasures to implement the provisions of reso-lution 253(1968), had continued to maintainclose economic, trade and other relations withthe illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia and hadpermitted the free flow of goods from SouthernRhodesia through the territories of South Africaand the colony of Mozambique and their portsand transport facilities.

The Committee also noted with regret thatthe illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia hadbeen carrying on trade with countries otherthan South Africa and Portugal in contraven-tion of the sanctions imposed by the SecurityCouncil and that that illegal trade hadamounted to approximately £44 million in1968.

The Committee believed that the halting ofthat trade would greatly increase the effective-ness of the sanctions and that, by the exerciseof greater vigilance and the application of morestringent requirements with regard to documentsin the case of suspected transactions, muchcould be done by the States complying withsanctions to interrupt the flow of covert trade.

In the light of the information available to itin the course of its investigation of the specificcases of suspected violations of resolution 253(1968), the Committee believed further thatmany States had not taken all possible measuresto prevent their nationals from engaging inactivities to promote the export of goodsneeded by the illegal régime or the use of shipsand aircraft of their registration or under char-ter to their nationals.

The Committee further stated that, as a re-sult of the refusal of South Africa and Portugalto take measures in accordance with the Coun-cil's decisions and the failure of some otherStates to implement fully the provisions of reso-lution 253(1968), it was compelled to observethat the sanctions established by that resolution

against the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesiahad not yet brought about the desired results.The Committee therefore felt that considerationshould be given to more effective measures toensure full implementation of Security Councilresolution 253(1968).

CONSIDERATION BYSECURITY COUNCIL(13-24 JUNE 1969)

On 6 June 1969, in a letter addressed to thePresident of the Security Council, the represent-atives of 60 Member States requested an urgentmeeting of the Council to examine the situationin Southern Rhodesia. The letter stated that forvarious reasons, in particular because of thelack of co-operation on the part of several Mem-ber States, notably South Africa and Portugal,the comprehensive mandatory sanctions im-posed by Security Council resolution 253(1968)of 29 May 1968 had failed to bring about thedesired result.

The letter went on to state that the illegalracist minority régime continued to strengthenits authority over the territory and its popula-tion and was contemplating new measures de-signed to formalize the system of apartheidalready in operation in the territory. Accordingto the letter, the rapid deterioration in thesituation and the refusal of the United King-dom to act in an appropriate manner—namely,to resort to the use of force—had created a seri-ous situation that constituted an increasingthreat to international peace and security.

The 60 Governments requested the Councilto take more energetic measures within theframework of Chapter VII of the United Na-tions Charter22 so that the people of SouthernRhodesia (Zimbabwe) could exercise theirright to self-determination in accordance withthe General Assembly's resolution 1514(XV)of 14 December 1960, containing the Declara-tion on the Granting of Independence to Colo-nial Countries and Peoples.23

The question of Southern Rhodesia was con-sidered by the Security Council at seven meet-ings held between 13 and 24 June 1969. Inaddition to the letter of 6 June from 60 Mem-ber States, the Council had before it the two

22 Ibid.23

See footnote 15.


reports of the Committee established in pursu-ance of the Council's resolution of 29 May 1968( 253 ( 1968))24 On 17 June and at subsequentmeetings, the representatives of Burundi,Guinea, India, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, So-malia, Sudan and the United Republic of Tan-zania were invited, at their request, to partici-pate in the discussion without the right to vote.

The representative of Algeria, the firstspeaker, said it was necessary to undertake anew examination of the problem of SouthernRhodesia in order to evaluate the consequencesof the policy of sanctions, which had clearlyfailed, and also to decide upon new measuresnecessitated by a dangerous situation that wasbecoming progressively uncontrollable. Insteadof facing insurmountable difficulties as a resultof the Security Council's adoption of its reso-lution of 29 May 1968, the illegal régime inSalisbury was on the verge of a new reaffirma-tion of its character by holding a referendumon a draft constitution marked by racism in itsmost brutal form.

The policy of economic sanctions had hadpractically insignificant results, the Algerianrepresentative continued. Its ineffectiveness wasdue, to a large extent, to the fact that SouthernRhodesia had sources of supply offered by itsallies, in South Africa and Portugal, throughMozambique. Obviously, the sealing off of theSouthern Rhodesian frontiers could be ensuredonly if those import and export routes wereclosed or if the economic sanctions could beextended to Southern Rhodesia's allies. Sincesuch a measure did not seem likely to obtain theagreement of those States having importanteconomic relations with South Africa and Por-tugal, the policy of economic sanctions wasbound to fail.

The Algerian representative went on to saythat the United Kingdom, the administeringpower, while proclaiming its will and desire tore-establish legality in Southern Rhodesia, wasnot applying means and measures that couldlead to that end. It had prematurely announcedthat it would not use force against the rebelliouscolony and had refused to resort to the deter-mined measures urged by the African countriesto put an end to the lan Smith rebellion. Heasserted that the Security Council, which hadall the necessary means to carry out a moreenergetic action, should do so with all the de-

termination required by the situation and bringto bear its entire authority to ensure stricterapplication of its decisions.

The Foreign Minister of Zambia and therepresentatives of Senegal, Pakistan and Nepalall referred to the illegality of the referendumand the so-called constitution. They servednotice, Pakistan said, of the Salisbury clique'sdefiance: of sanctions and its determination todeny the people of Zimbabwe their right tomajority rule and to impose the system ofapartheid forever. The Council should at oncecondemn such actions and proceed to considerfurther measures to end the settler régime andremove the threat to peace.

Zambia and Senegal recalled that they hadbeen skeptical about sanctions from the verystart. Together with Pakistan and Nepal, theyemphasized that the policy of sanctions hadfailed, principally because of the defiant atti-tude of South Africa and Portugal towardsimplementing the resolutions of the Council,but also because of the failure of some otherStates to apply fully the provisions of the Coun-cil's resolution 253(1968) of 29 May 1968.

All four States said they considered it neces-sary, therefore, for the Council to strengthenthe mandatory sanctions to cover all measuresenvisaged under Article 41 of the United Na-tions Charter25 and to extend them to Portugaland South Africa. Zambia said the Council mustalso be prepared to apply the provisions of Ar-ticle 42 of the Charter.26

Pakistan declared it was essential that the 12countries which had continued to maintain

24 See footnote 16.25 Article 41 of the Charter states: "The Security

Council may decide what measures not involving theuse of armed force are to be employed to give effectto its decisions, and it may call upon the Members ofthe United Nations to apply such measures. Thesemay include complete or partial interruption of eco-nomic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic,radio, and other means of communication, and theseverance of diplomatic relations."

"Article 42 of the Charter states: "Should the Se-curity Council consider that measures provided for inArticle 41 would be inadequate or have proved to beinadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, orland forces as may be necessary to maintain or restoreinternational peace and security. Such action may in-clude demonstrations, blockade, and other operationsby air, sea, or land forces of Members of the UnitedNations."

QUESTIONS RELATING TO AFRICA 117consular representation should withdraw itwithout delay, and also urged that ways andmeans be devised to stop the inflow of capitalinto Southern Rhodesia.

All of these speakers stressed the primary re-sponsibility of the United Kingdom as the ad-ministering power. Zambia noted that theUnited Kingdom had unfortunately ruled outthe only weapon—force—which it could haveused to topple the racist régime and had thusemboldened the Smith régime. The apartheidsystem was being strengthened daily, said Sene-gal, with the same torture as used in SouthAfrica and with the execution of freedom fight-ers. In the face of the impossibility of a nego-tiated settlement and the failure of sanctions,the only alternatives, continued Zambia, werethe use of force by the United Kingdom or bythe people of Zimbabwe themselves. Zambia,Senegal and Pakistan stated that the UnitedKingdom, which had used force against othercolonies, should use force to quell the racistminority rebellion in Southern Rhodesia; other-wise the racial conflict would spread.

The United Kingdom representative said theCouncil was faced with a new developmentin Southern Rhodesia—namely, a referendumcalled for among the minority on 20 June 1969on proposals for a new constitution of whichnearly every clause disclosed racial discrimina-tion, oppression and injustice. The proposalswould entrench forever the position of thewhite minority. There was no judicial safeguardto the so-called declaration of rights. The Coun-cil, he said, must act in unity to condemn theillegal régime and that constitution prior to thereferendum date, so as to have maximum effect.Then, after consultations with the Common-wealth Governments and others, particularlyAfrican Governments, his Government wouldface the hard facts with the other Council mem-bers and consider what could be done.

The United Kingdom's clear commitment, hewent on, was to continue denying recognitionand to maintain sanctions against the illegalrégime. The most important principle, hestressed, was that no settlement could be ac-cepted which was not approved by the peopleof Southern Rhodesia as a whole. Unavoidablelimitations meant that progress must be slow.

The representative of the United States,commenting on the constitutional proposals,

noted that they contained franchise provisionswhich assured that decisive political powerwould remain forever in white hands, a legis-lative power that completely ruled out an Afri-can majority, land tenure provisions providingequal areas for the 5 per cent who were whiteand the 95 per cent who were black, and anironically titled "Declaration of Rights" withpolice state provisions.

The grave political significance of these un-just proposals meant, the United States repre-sentative said, that the illegal régime had aban-doned all pretence of legitimizing its country'sstatus in the international community and hadset its face towards a usurped independencebased on perpetual white supremacy. He agreedthat the constitution must be condemned be-fore the referendum date and said the Councilcould then consult on further appropriate stepswith regard to Southern Rhodesia. Later, hestated that his Government had scrupulouslyapplied the economic sanctions imposed onSouthern Rhodesia by the Council.

The spokesman for the USSR said the con-stitutional proposals were aimed at perpetu-ating not only the political domination of thewhite minority over the African people of Zim-babwe but also the people's economic bondageand the exploitation of their wealth. The birthof the Salisbury régime and the proposed con-stitution were the logical consequences of thecolonialist policy of the imperialist powers andabove all the United Kingdom, which hadabetted the appearance and the strengtheningof that racist régime.

It was not only South Africa and Portugalthat had violated the sanctions, he went on. TheUnited Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Ger-many, the United States and others, especiallymembers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organi-zation (NATO), had taken no effective measuresto bring down the régime, and had supportedlarge-scale trade and economic relations withSouthern Rhodesia and had undermined theeffective implementation of the Council's reso-lution 253(1968). The miserly reduction indirect trade with Southern Rhodesia had beenmore than compensated for by the expansion oftrade with South Africa and Portugal, throughwhich the United Kingdom and some otherWestern countries continued in fact to tradewith the Smith régime.


The USSR, he said, in view of the urgencyof the question, supported the idea of an agreeddecision on the intolerable nature of the so-called referendum before consideration of thewhole problem of Southern Rhodesia. It alsosupported proposals of several African andAsian countries on the need for more energeticmeasures to enable the people of Zimbabwe tocarry out their right to self-determination inconformity with the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples.

The USSR representative said his Govern-ment also supported the recommendation ofthe General Asesmbly to expand the sanctionsagainst Southern Rhodesia to include allmeasures provided for under Article 41 of theCharter27 and also to apply sanctions againstSouth Africa and Portugal. The United King-dom, as the administering power, must takeeffective measures against the racist minority inSouthern Rhodesia to ensure elections on thebasis of the principle of "one man, one vote"and the immediate transfer of power to a gov-ernment of the majority.

China, Colombia. Finland, France. Paraguayand Spain considered that the Security Councilmust without delay unanimously condemn theprojected referendum and constitution and thenconsider how its resolution 253(1968) of 29May 1968 might be supplemented by more ef-fective measures. The representative of Francestressed that his Government had scrupulouslycomplied with the economic sanctions againstSouthern Rhodesia. The spokesmen for Spainand France both emphasized the primary re-sponsibility of the United Kingdom, as theadministering power, to end the rebellion inthat territory. At the same time. France reiter-ated its doubts regarding the wisdom of UnitedNations intervention in a matter which, in itsview, fell within the competence of a MemberState.

When the Council resumed consideration ofthe question on 17 June, the President notedthat all Council members in the course of theirstatements had regarded the proposed referen-dum planned by the illegal régime of SouthernRhodesia for 20 June as illegal, considered thatthe so-called constitutional proposals were in-valid and declared that any "constitution"

promulgated by the régime of the racist minoritycould have no legal effect.

At the meetings on 17 and 18 June, theinvited representatives of Burundi, Guinea,India, Mauritania, Somalia, Sudan and theUnited Republic of Tanzania endorsed andamplified explanations of various aspects of theSouthern Rhodesian problem presented by theAfrican members of the Security Council. Theydrew particular attention to the primary respon-sibility of the United Kingdom, the administer-ing power, which, they said, by its half-heartedand ineffective attitude had abdicated its legaland political responsibilities for the situation inSouthern Rhodesia, and had failed to see thatresort to force was the only way to end therebellion of the white racist minority.

While agreeing that the referendum and theproposed racist constitution should be con-demned, these States insisted that such a con-demnation should not replace the duty of theSecurity Council to meet the challenge andconfront the illegal and inhuman acts of theracist régime which were threatening peace andsecurity in Africa. The existing policy of sanc-tions having failed, the Council, they insisted,must ensure implementation of broader sanc-tions against that régime under Article 41 of theCharter and also apply sanctions against SouthAfrica and Portugal. The survival of the UnitedNations as an effective instrument was. theybelieved, at stake. Failure to act in the presentcrisis would further increase the danger of fu-ture racial conflict in the southern part ofAfrica.

The representative of Saudi Arabia suggesteda new approach to the problem of SouthernRhodesia. Since the United Kingdom, he said,was unwilling or not in a position to use forceto solve the problem, the United Nations couldcreate a fund, financed by those directly con-cerned, for the purpose of wide publicity aimedat reassuring the indigenous people of Africa oftheir human rights and warning the whiteminority there that they were alienating them-selves from the rest of the world by practisingapartheid. This would be followed by an effec-tive enforcement of the trade embargo against

27 See footnote 25.

Southern Rhodesia to be mounted by a corpsof the States of the Organization of AfricanUnity ( OAU ). Should those measures fail, theSaudi Arabian representative said, then—withthe permission of the United Kingdom—thetwo great powers and any other power con-cerned, in co-operation with certain AfricanStates, could take steps to seize and remove theleaders of the illegal régime.

On 19 June, a draft resolution was submittedby Algeria, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal and Zam-bia, by the operative paragraphs of which theSecurity Council would:

(1) emphasize the responsibility of theUnited Kingdom, as the administering power,for the situation prevailing in Southern Rho-desia and condemn the so-called constitutionalproposals of the illegal racist minority régimeaimed at perpetuating its power and sanction-ing the system of apartheid in Southern Rho-desia ;

(2) urge the United Kingdom to take ur-gently all necessary measures, including the useof force, to bring an end to the rebellion inSouthern Rhodesia and enable the people ofZimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia) to exercisetheir right to self-determination and independ-ence in accordance with the General Assembly'sresolution 1514(XV), of 14 December 1960 onthe granting of independence to colonial coun-tries and peoples;28

(3) decide that all States should sever im-mediately all economic and other relations withthe illegal racist minority régime in SouthernRhodesia, including railway, maritime, air trans-port, postal, telephonic and wireless communi-cations and other means of communication;

(4) censure the assistance given by Portugaland South Africa to the illegal racist minorityrégime in defiance of resolutions of the SecurityCouncil ;

(5) decide that Member States and membersof the specialized agencies should carry out themeasures dealing with imports and exports en-visaged in the Council's resolution 253(1968)of 29 May 1968 and in the present resolutionagainst the Republic of South Africa and thePortuguese colony of Mozambique;

(6) call upon all Member States and mem-bers of the specialized agencies to carry out thedecisions of the Security Council in accordance


with their obligations

119under the United Na-

tions Charter;(7) call upon Member States and, in par-

ticular, those with primary responsibility underthe Charter for the maintenance of interna-tional peace and security to assist effectively inthe implementation of the measures called forby the present resolution;

(8) urge all States to render moral and ma-terial assistance to the national liberationmovements of Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia)in order to enable them to achieve their freedomand independence;

(9) request all States to report to the Secre-tary-General on the measures taken to imple-ment the present resolution; and

(10) request the Secretary-General to reportto the Security Council on the progress of theimplementation of this resolution.

Introducing the draft resolution on behalf ofthe sponsors, the Algerian representative saidthere were three principal points upon whichit was based, namely: the need for completeand mandatory sanctions under Article 41 ofthe Charter, in view of the failure of the cur-rent sanctions policy; the need for measures toforestall all attempts by South Africa and Por-tugal to hinder the efforts of the Council; andthe continuing duty of the United Kingdom touse all its means, including resort to force, toput an end to the minority régime.

Replying on the question of using force, advo-cated by several speakers during the debate, theUnited Kingdom representative restated theposition of his Government, namely, that itcould not contemplate starting a war by invad-ing Southern Rhodesia, a territory where therehad not been a British army or a British officialin an administrative capacity since 1923. Onceforce was used, he maintained, escalation couldensue with incalculable results.

Regarding the extension of sanctions toSouth Africa and Portugal, he said the UnitedKingdom could not go beyond the arms em-bargo it had already imposed against SouthAfrica. A full campaign of economic sanctionsbacked by a naval blockade would do irre-parable harm to the United Kingdom's tradingand balance-of-payments position, and would

26 See footnote 15.


also require resources well beyond the capacityof the United Nations.

As to the policy of sanctions against SouthernRhodesia, the United Kingdom representativesaid his Government had taken the lead inclosing gaps and tightening controls;. The pres-sure on the illegal régime should not be relaxedand his Government, he added, was ready toconsider any effective measures of intensification.

Hungary's representative, after explaining thereasons that he felt had caused the failure ofthe policy of sanctions, said it was high timestricter measures were adopted, such as thosecontained in the African-Asian draft resolutionbefore the Council. The past appeals for unity,based on the delaying tactics of the administer-ing power, had led the Council up a blindalley; now it was up to the United Kingdomand its sympathizers to join the majority andhelp bring about a unity that would lead toresults and not to repeated deadlocks.

Hungary would vote for the draft resolution,he said, but it was important to recognize that,although such new and resolute measures wereneeded, they would not be necessary if theUnited Kingdom exercised its responsibility inthe matter and took all measures, including theuse of force, to bring to an end the rebellion inSouthern Rhodesia.

On 24 June, the five-power draft resolutionwas voted on as a whole, the sponsors havingobjected to separate votes on any of its parts, assuggested by Spain. The vote was 8 in favourto 0 against, with 7 abstentions, and the draftresolution was not adopted, having failed toobtain the required majority.

The United Kingdom's representative ex-pressed regret at the Council's failure to actunanimously but emphasized that: the Councilwas fully agreed on several points, namely, thatthe referendum and the so-called constitutionwere illegal and invalid, and that a call shouldbe renewed to all Member States not to recog-nize the illegal régime in any way.

The spokesmen for Zambia and Pakistanmaintained that efforts by the United Nationsto deal effectively with the situation in SouthernRhodesia could not succeed unless the UnitedKingdom changed its policy and until a newpolitical will evolved that would supersede na-tional economic interests.

The representatives of France, Colombia, the

United States and Paraguay, speaking in ex-planation of vote, said they had abstained fromvoting because the draft resolution containedprovisions they considered grave and inappro-priate, particularly those calling for the use offorce against the rebel regime and the extensionof economic sanctions to South Africa andPortugal.

In a letter of 13 October 1969, the ForeignMinister ad interim of Portugal informed thePresident of the Security Council that the Por-tuguese "Province of Mozambique" continuedto suffer great economic losses as a result ofaction taken by the Security Council in adopt-ing its .resolutions of 9 April 1966,29 16 Decem-ber 196630 and 29 May 1968.31 The losses suf-fered up to mid-1969, he said, amounted tomore than £28 million. He reaffirmed the desireof his Government to receive adequate compen-sation and its readiness to initiate consultationswith the Security Council, in accordance withArticle 50 of the Charter,32 to determine themethod of paying the compensation in question.

CONSIDERATION BYSPECIAL COMMITTEE

The General Assembly's 24-member SpecialCommittee on the Situation with regard to theImplementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples considered the question ofSouthern Rhodesia at meetings held at UnitedNations Headquarters, New York, between 4and 26 March 1969, and at meetings held awayfrom Headquarters between 12 and 23 May.On its return, the Special Committee resumedconsideration of the item at meetings held from5 to 10 June.

29 See Y.U.N., 1966, p. 112, text of resolution 221(1966).

30Ilid., pp. 116-17, text of resolution 232(1966).31 See footnote 16.32 Article 50 of the Charter states: "If preventive or

enforcement measures against any state are taken bythe Security Council, any other state, whether a Mem-ber of the United Nations or not, which finds itselfconfronted with special economic problems arisingfrom the carrying out of those measures shall have theright to consult the Security Council with regard to asolution of those problems."

During its consideration of the question, theSpecial Committee heard three petitioners:T. G. Silundika of the Zimbabwe AfricanPeoples Union (ZAPU) and T. Mutizwa andP. L. Chihota of the Zimbabwe African Na-tional Union (ZANU) .

The petitioners informed the Committee thatthe war of national liberation which they werewaging against the illegal régime in SouthernRhodesia continued unabated, and that it wouldgo on until they had liberated their motherland.In this connexion, they noted that sanctionsimposed by the United Nations on the illegalrégime and the liberation struggle which theywere waging were not mutually exclusive. Thepetitioners noted that the General Assembly hadurged all States to render all moral and materialassistance to the national liberation movementsand called on United Nations Members to givethis appeal whole-hearted support.

The petitioners also told the Special Com-mittee that the fascist police methods of thewhite settler régime continued unabated. Thou-sands of Africans were cast into jail on trumped-up charges. Leaders of the African people ofZimbabwe and countless others were languish-ing in various jails and detention centresthroughout the country. Since 1964, a situationhad developed in the territory in which theillegal régime had admitted its inability togovern without resort to Gestapo-like emer-gency powers.

The petitioners said that fears had been ex-pressed of victimization, loss of employment,ostracism, exposure to poverty and starvationand imprisonment in detention camps. Themurders that had previously been committedafter mock trials in the courts were now beingcarried out in the bush so as not to attractpublic attention.

It was imperative, the petitioners stressed, forthe United Nations to demand that the freedomfighters who fell into the hands of the securityforces of the illegal régime should be treated asprisoners of war; such a demand had been madebefore, but it had not been heeded.

The petitioners said there was a mutual de-fence treaty between the illegal régime and theGovernments of South Africa and Portugalunder which armed forces were deployedthroughout southern Africa for the commonpurpose of suppressing the African's fight for


freedom. They said there were 3,000 uniformedSouth African troops in Southern Rhodesiawhose presence was neither accidental nor tem-porary. The NATO powers had long-term interestsin southern Africa and were the main source ofarms to the colonial régimes of Portugal andSouth Africa, both of which were aiding theillegal régime in Southern Rhodesia.

The petitioners stated there was no chancethat the economic sanctions could be effectivelyapplied against the settler régime in SouthernRhodesia, no matter how many resolutions werepassed, because foreign economic interests fromWestern countries entrenched in southern Af-rica would not co-operate in the implementationof sanctions.

In the course of the general debate on thequestion, members of the Special Committeereviewed developments in the territory since theillegal declaration of independence and re-affirmed their policies and views as stated inprevious debates. New developments to whichmembers drew special attention included thetrial and conviction of the Reverend Ndaba-ningi Sithole; the continued detention, impris-onment and assassination of other nationalistleaders by the illegal racist minority régime;and the steps being taken by the illegal regimeto entrench, under the guise of a so-calledconstitution, its policies of separate racial de-velopment in Southern Rhodesia, to the detri-ment of the legitimate rights of the Africanpopulation. Committee members were unani-mous in expressing their deep concern at thesedevelopments.

Many representatives, including those ofAfghanistan, Honduras, India, Iran, Madagas-car, Mali, Syria, the United Republic of Tan-zania, and Yugoslavia, pointed out that theprimary responsibility for bringing an end tothe illegal situation in Southern Rhodesia restedwith the Government of the United Kingdom.They said it was not enough for that Govern-ment to state that it accepted that responsibility;it should go further and take effective action toend the rebellion and subsequently hand overpower to the representatives of the Africanpeople.

The representative of Tunisia expressed re-gret at the hesitation of the United KingdomGovernment to provide a serious remedy to thesituation in the territory. The illegal régime


could not, he believed, have undertaken thesuppression of the African population if it hadnot been encouraged from the beginning by thedecision of the United Kingdom not to use forceand by the many concessions proposed to it bythe United Kingdom at talks.

Most members of the Special Committeewere of the view that the sanctions imposed bythe Security Council had been ineffective. Bul-garia, Iraq, Poland and the USSR believed thatthe responsibility for this lay with the UnitedKingdom and other Western powers, as well aswith the international monopolies which wereundermining the sanctions.

These members and others, including Af-ghanistan, Ethiopia, Syria and Tunisia, alsoemphasized the role being played by SouthAfrica and Portugal. They stated that thesecountries not only refused to comply with thesanctions imposed by the United Nations butwere also providing support for the illegal ré-gime in many ways. They therefore called forthe extension of sanctions to cover these twocountries.

Ecuador stressed the need for the SecurityCouncil to take appropriate steps, to end thesituation in Southern Rhodesia. Mali believedthat the United Nations should pursue its effortsto isolate the illegal régime. Venezuela recom-mended the adoption of new measures to ensurethe implementation of United Nations resolu-tions on Southern Rhodesia.

The representatives of Italy, Norway and theUnited States, however, felt that, despite someshortcomings, the sanctions imposed againstSouthern Rhodesia had already had a noticeableeffect on the territory's economy. They pointedout that the sanctions had been in force for acomparatively short time and that it was pre-mature to conclude that they were a failure.

The representative of the United Statesstressed the need to ensure that the sanctionswere made as effective as possible and said hisGovernment believed that the Committee ofthe Security Council established in pursuanceof the Council's resolution 253(1968) of 29May 196833 could contribute to this goal byworking for a tightening of sanctions andcompliance.

The spokesman for the United Republic ofTanzania said that if the people of Southern

Rhodesia could not free themselves from whitedomination and oppression by peaceful means,then they would do so by armed struggle. Heassured the people of Zimbabwe of his coun-try's full support in their struggle. Similar viewswere expressed by Bulgaria, Honduras, India,the Ivory Coast, Mali, Poland, Syria, Tunisia,the USSR and Yugoslavia.

On 26 March 1969, the Special Committee,by a roll-call vote of 20 to 0, adopted a resolu-tion on the question of Southern Rhodesiasponsored by Afghanistan, Ethiopia, India, Iran,Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Mali, Sierra Leone,Syria, the United Republic of Tanzania, Tu-nisia and Yugoslavia.

By this resolution, the Special Committee ex-pressed its profound indignation at the trial andconviction of Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole and thecontinued detention, imprisonment and assassi-nation of other nationalist leaders by the illegalracist minority régime; it also expressed itsconcern at the steps being taken by the illegalrégime to entrench, under the guise of a so-called new constitution, its policies of separateracial development in Southern Rhodesia, to thedetriment of the legitimate rights of the Africanpopulation; and, finally, it called upon theadministering power to take immediate meas-ures to secure the release of all political prison-ers and to prevent the introduction of theso-called new constitution in the territory.

On 10 June 1969, the Special Committeeadopted a second resolution on the question ofSouthern Rhodesia, sponsored by Afghanistan,Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Madagascar, Mali, SierraLeone, Syria, Tunisia, the United Republic ofTanzania, and Yugoslavia.

By this second resolution the Special Com-mittee, among other things:

(1) reaffirmed the inalienable right of thepeople of Zimbabwe to freedom and independ-ence and the legitimacy of their struggle to at-tain that right in conformity with the provisionsof the General Assembly's resolution 1514(XV)of 14 December 1960 (containing the Declara-tion on the Granting of Independence to Colo-nial Countries and Peoples) ;34

38 See footnote 16.3 4

See footnote 15.

(2) declared illegal all steps being taken bythe racist minority régime, including the so-called referendum, further to deprive the peopleof Zimbabwe of their legitimate rights and toentrench, under the guise of a new so-calledconstitution, its policies of separate racial devel-opment in Southern Rhodesia;

(3) noted with concern that the sanctionsadopted had so far failed to put an end to theillegal racist minority régime;

(4) condemned the failure and refusal ofthe United Kingdom, as the administeringpower, to take effective measures to bring downthe illegal racist minority régime in SouthernRhodesia and to transfer power to the peopleof Zimbabwe on the basis of free elections byuniversal adult suffrage and of majority rule;

(5) condemned the intervention of SouthAfrican armed forces in Southern Rhodesiawhich constituted an act of aggression againstthe people of Zimbabwe;

(6) condemned the policies of the Govern-ments of South Africa and Portugal and otherGovernments which continued to have political,economic, financial and other relations withSouthern Rhodesia in contravention of the rele-vant United Nations resolutions;

(7) condemned the activities of those foreigneconomic and other interests which enabled theillegal racist minority régime to circumvent themeasures laid down in Security Council reso-lution 253(1968) of 29 May 1968 and which,by their exploitation of the people of Zimbabwe,were impeding the implementation of the Decla-ration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples;

(8) called upon the United Kingdom, infulfilment of its responsibility as the administer-ing power, to take effective measures, includingthe use of force, to put an immediate end tothe illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia and totransfer all powers to the people of Zimbabweon the basis of majority rule;

(9) called upon the administering power toensure the immediate release of African na-tionalists who were in detention and to preventfurther assassinations and imprisonment of Afri-can nationalists in Southern Rhodesia;

(10) called upon all States, as well as thespecialized agencies and other international or-ganizations concerned, bearing in mind that the


Security Council in its resolution 253(1968) of29 May 1968 had recognized the legitimacy ofthe struggle of the people of Zimbabwe to securethe enjoyment of their rights as set forth in theUnited Nations Charter and in conformity withthe objectives of the General Assembly's resolu-tion of 14 December 1960 on the granting ofindependence, to extend all moral and materialassistance to the national liberation movementsof Zimbabwe directly or through the Organi-zation of African Unity;

(11) called upon the United Kingdom, inview of the armed conflict in the territory andthe inhuman treatment of prisoners, to ensurethe application to that situation of the GenevaConvention relative to the Treatment of Prison-ers of War of 12 August 1949;

(12) drew the Security Council's attentionto the gravity of the situation arising from theintensification of suppressive activities againstthe people of Zimbabwe and from the dangerof aggression against neighbouring States whichconstituted a threat to international peace andsecurity;

(13) further drew the attention of the Se-curity Council to the urgent necessity of apply-ing the following measures envisaged underChapter VII of the Charter: (a) the scope ofthe sanctions should be widened further to in-clude all the measures laid down under Article41 of Chapter VII of the Charter with respectto the illegal racist régime in Southern Rho-desia; (b) sanctions should be imposed on SouthAfrica and Portugal, the Governments of whichhad blatantly refused to carry out the manda-tory decisions of the Security Council.35

The Special Committee adopted this resolu-tion by a roll-call vote of 19 to 2 (the UnitedKingdom and the United States), with 2 ab-stentions (Italy and Norway).

Explaining his vote, the representative ofItaly said the resolution contained a numberof provisions that were not in accordance withthe Charter. These and other considerationswhich indicated a lack of realism did not addto the prestige and efficiency of the Organiza-tion and called for a negative vote. However,Italy had abstained because it was firmly op-

35 See footnote 21.


posed to the illegal régime and shared the viewof those who wished to see it brought down.

The United States representative said hisGovernment remained firmly dedicated to theprinciple of self-determination and independ-ence for Southern Rhodesia. He had votedagainst the resolution since certain key pro-visions did not represent a realistic approach tothe realization of those objectives.

The representative of Norway said his gov-ernment had consistently supported the viewthat a peaceful solution must be found to thequestion of Southern Rhodesia. A call for theuse of force would not contribute to such a solu-tion. It was also Norway's view that the SecurityCouncil should continue to lead United Nationsaction with regard to Southern Rhodesia andthat other organs should avoid actions thatmight tend to restrict the Council's choice ofpolicy.

ACTION BY HUMAN RIGHTSCOMMISSION AND ECONOMICAND SOCIAL COUNCIL

DECISIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

At its twenty-fifth session, held at UnitedNations Headquarters, New York, from 17 Feb-ruary to 21 March 1969, the Commission onHuman Rights adopted six resolutions in con-nexion with its annual consideration—initiatedin 1967—of the question of the violation ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms, in-cluding policies of racial discrimination andsegregation and of apartheid, in all countries,with particular reference to colonial and otherdependent countries and territories.

In particular, the Human Rights Commis-sion, by a resolution adopted on 19 March1969, welcomed the observations, conclusionsand recommendations of its Ad Hoc WorkingGroup of Experts on the treatment of politicalprisoners in South Africa, Namibia, SouthernRhodesia and the African territories under Por-tuguese administration. It decided among otherthings that the mandate of the Working Groupof Experts should be extended to include: aninquiry into the question of capital punishmentin southern Africa; an inquiry into the treatmentmeted out to political prisoners, as well as tocaptured freedom fighters, in southern Africa;an investigation into the conditions of Africans

in the so-called Transit Camps, as well as onthe so-called Native Reserves in the Republicof South Africa, in Namibia and in SouthernRhodesia; and a further investigation of gravemanifestations of colonialism and racial dis-crimination present in the situation in Namibia,Southern Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique andGuinea (Bissau), resulting from the actions ofthe illegal South African régime in Namibia,the illegal minority régime in Southern Rho-desia and the colonialist Portuguese régime inAngola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau).(For details, see pp. 502-6.)

In another resolution, adopted on 27 Febru-ary 1969, concerning measures for effectivelycombating racial discrimination, the policies ofapartheid and segregation in southern Africa,the Human Rights Commission, among otherthings, deplored the refusal of the Governmentof the United Kingdom to suppress the racistand illegal minority régime in Southern Rho-desia and thus to restore the fundamental hu-man rights of the people of Zimbabwe. (Fordetails, see pp. 495-96.)

DECISIONS OF ECONOMIC

AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

At its forty-sixth session, held from 12 Mayto 6 June 1969, the Economic and Social Coun-cil adopted a series of resolutions on 6 June1969 relating to the policies of apartheid andsituations arising therefrom in southern Africa.

By the terms of resolution 1414(XLVI), theCouncil, recognizing the need to co-ordinatethe activities of the various organizations in theUnited Nations system and of its organs withrespect to apartheid and racial segregation insouthern Africa, requested the Secretary-Generalto report to the Council on the terms of refer-ence of the different United Nations organs andtheir subsidiary bodies dealing with violationsof human rights and fundamental freedoms insouthern Africa, a brief survey of activities sofar undertaken by the various organs designedto bring about respect for human rights insouthern Africa, and a statement of the activi-ties so far undertaken by the specialized agen-cies, particularly the International Labour Or-ganisation (ILO) and the United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza-tion (UNESCO) in the same field. (For details,see page 96.)

QUESTIONS RELATING TO AFRICA 125By resolution 1412 (XLVI), the Council,

among other things, noted that the infringe-ments of trade union rights continued unabatedin the Republic of South Africa, Southern Rho-desia and Namibia and expressed concern thatthey were the direct outcome of the policies ofapartheid and racial discrimination pursued bythe régimes in those countries. With regard toSouthern Rhodesia, the Council called upon theUnited Kingdom to intervene immediately inSouthern Rhodesia with a view to, inter alia,checking further infringements of trade unionrights in Southern Rhodesia and to restore thebasic rights of trade unions there to freedomof association.

In this resolution, the Council also madefurther, specific recommendations with regardto trade union rights in Southern Rhodesia.These were based on the report of the Ad HocWorking Group of Experts, which had beenasked, among other things, to carry out—inco-operation with ILO—an examination of thedenial and infringements of trade union rightsby the illegal racist minority régime in SouthernRhodesia. (For further details, see pp. 534-37.)

By another resolution (1415 (XLVI)) adoptedon 6 June 1969, the Council recommended tothe General Assembly the adoption of a resolu-tion whereby the Assembly, expressing alarm atthe evidence of gross and systematic violationsof human rights and fundamental freedoms inSouth Africa, Namibia and Southern Rhodesiawould, with regard to Southern Rhodesia: de-plore the refusal of the United Kingdom Gov-ernment to suppress the racist and illegal mi-nority régime in Southern Rhodesia and thusto restore the fundamental human rights of thepeople of Zimbabwe; regret that the relevantUnited Nations resolutions regarding the termi-nation of diplomatic, commercial, military, cul-tural and other relations with the racist andillegal minority régime in Southern Rhodesiawere still not being observed by several MemberStates; call for the termination of such rela-tions immediately in accordance with the rele-vant resolutions of the Assembly and the Se-curity Council; request the Secretary-General toset up a unit of the United Nations radio inAfrica to produce and broadcast radio pro-grammes to the peoples of southern Africa; andask him to give the widest possible publicity tothe evils and actions of the racist regimes in

South Africa, Namibia and Southern Rhodesia,through non-governmental and other organi-zations.

On 15 December 1969, the General Assemblyadopted the text recommended by the Councilas its resolution 2547 B (XXIV). (For furtherdetails, see pp. 496-98.)

The Economic and Social Council also on 6June 1969 adopted resolution 1424(XLVI), bywhich it reiterated its condemnation of everypractice of torture and ill-treatment of prison-ers, detainees and freedom fighters perpetratedin South Africa, Namibia, Southern Rhodesiaand the territories under Portuguese administra-tion and postponed, for lack of time, detailedconsideration of the various recommendationsfor action contained in the report of the Ad HocWorking Group of Experts on the treatment ofpolitical prisoners in southern Africa establishedby the Human Rights Commission. (For details,see page 504. )

Finally, the Economic and Social Council, bya decision taken on 6 June 1969 without adop-tion of a resolution, asked the General Assemblyto extend the scope of the United Nations TrustFund for South Africa to provide assistance tothe victims of apartheid and racial discrimina-tion in Southern Rhodesia. The Council tookthis decision on the recommendation of itsSocial Committee. (See also page 97.)


GENERAL ASPECTS

At its twenty-fourth session, which opened on16 September 1969, the General Assemblyreferred the question of Southern Rhodesia toits Fourth Committee for consideration. TheFourth Committee decided to consider the itemtogether with the questions of Namibia and theterritories under Portuguese administration,and to hold a general debate covering all threeitems, it being understood that individual draftresolutions on the items would be consideredseparately after the conclusion of the generaldebate and the hearing of petitioners. On thisbasis, the Fourth Committee considered thequestion of Southern Rhodesia at meetings heldbetween 3 October and 3 November 1969.

During its consideration of the question, theFourth Committee heard a statement by Kotsho


Dube of the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union(ZAPU), in which he reiterated the points madeby the petitioners appearing before: the SpecialCommittee of 24 earlier in the year (see above).

H. M. Sahnoun, Deputy Secretary-Generalof the Organization of African Unity (OAU)and a representative of the World Health Or-ganization (WHO) also made statements.

Following the general debate, the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania introduced a draft reso-lution on the question of Southern Rhodesiawhich was eventually sponsored by the following41 Member States: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bu-rundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, the Congo(Brazzaville), the Democratic Republic of theCongo, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guy-ana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya,Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mo-rocco, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines,Rwanda, Senegal,, Sierra Leone, Somalia,Southern Yemen, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia,Uganda, the United Arab Republic, the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia andZambia.

On 3 November 1969, the draft resolution, asorally amended by Trinidad and Tobago, wasapproved by the Fourth Committee by a roll-call vote of 79 in favour to 8 against, with 17abstentions. On 21 November 1969. the GeneralAssembly, without debate, adopted the text bya recorded vote of 83 to 7, with 20 abstentions,as resolution 2508 (XXIV).

By the preambular paragraphs to this reso-lution, the Assembly, after recalling previousresolutions adopted on the question, expressedits deep concern about the deteriorating situa-tion in Southern Rhodesia resulting from theintroduction by the illegal racist minority régimeof new measures aimed at entrenching itself aswell as repressing the African people in viola-tion of Assembly resolution 1514(XV) of 14December 1960 on the granting of independ-ence to colonial countries and peoples,36 andabout the continued presence of South Africanforces in the territory.

It expressed deep concern also about thepersistent threat to the sovereignty and terri-torial integrity of neighbouring African Statesresulting from the existing situation in SouthernRhodesia and the presence of South Africanforces in the territory.

It also noted that the United Kingdom, asthe administering power, had the primary re-sponsibility for putting an end to the illegalracist minority régime in Southern Rhodesiaand transferring effective power to the peopleof Zimbabwe on the basis of majority rule.

By the operative paragraphs of the resolution,the General Assembly:

(1) reaffirmed the inalienable right of thepeople of Zimbabwe to freedom and independ-ence and the legitimacy of their struggle toattain that right in conformity with Assemblyresolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960;

(2) declared illegal all measures taken bythe racist minority régime to deprive the peopleof Zimbabwe of their legitimate rights and toentrench its policies of apartheid in SouthernRhodesia;

(3) condemned the failure and refusal of theUnited Kingdom, as the administering power,to take effective measures to bring down theillegal racist minority régime in Southern Rho-desia and to transfer power to the people ofZimbabwe on the basis of majority rule inaccordance with all the relevant resolutions ofthe General Assembly;

(4) condemned the intervention of SouthAfrican armed forces in Southern Rhodesia,which constituted an act of aggression againstthe people and territorial integrity of Zimbabwe,and called upon the United Kingdom, as theadministering power, to ensure the immediateexpulsion of all South African forces fromSouthern Rhodesia;

(5) condemned the policies of the Govern-ments of South Africa and Portugal and otherGovernments which continued to have political,economic, military and other relations with theillegal racist minority régime in Southern Rho-desia in contravention of the relevant UnitedNations resolutions, thereby violating their ob-ligations under the Charter;

(6) condemned the policies of those Stateswhich made it possible for their nationals toemigrate to Southern Rhodesia in violation ofSecurity Council resolution 253(1968) of 29May 1968 ;37

36 See footnote 15.37 See footnote 16.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO AFRICA 127(7) called upon the United Kingdom, in

fulfilment of its responsibility as the administer-ing power, to take effective measures, includingthe use of force, to put an immediate end to theillegal racist minority régime in Southern Rho-desia and to transfer all powers to the peopleof Zimbabwe on the basis of majority rule;

(8) called upon the administering power toensure the immediate release of the Africannationalists who were in detention and to pre-vent further assassinations and imprisonment ofAfrican nationalists in Southern Rhodesia;

(9) called upon all States which continuedto maintain political, economic, military andother relations with the illegal racist minorityrégime in Southern Rhodesia to bring them toan immediate end;

(10) called upon all States, specialized agen-cies and other international organizations con-cerned to extend all moral and material as-sistance to the national liberation movements ofZimbabwe, in co-operation with the Organiza-tion of African Unity;

(11) called upon the United Kingdom, inview of the armed conflict in the territory andthe inhuman treatment of prisoners, to ensurethe application to that situation of the GenevaConventions of 12 August 1949 relative to thetreatment of prisoners of war and the protec-tion of civilians in time of war;

(12) drew the attention of the SecurityCouncil to the gravity of the situation arisingfrom the intensification of suppressive activitiesagainst the people of Zimbabwe and from armedattacks perpetrated against neighbouring Statesin violation of international peace and security;

(13) reaffirmed its conviction that the sanc-tions would not put an end to the illegal racistminority régime in Southern Rhodesia unlessthey were comprehensive, mandatory, effectivelysupervised, enforced and complied with, par-ticularly by South Africa and Portugal; and

(14) further drew the attention of the Se-curity Council to the urgent necessity of apply-ing the following measures envisaged underChapter VII of the Charter: (a) the scope ofthe sanctions against the illegal racist minorityrégime should be widened to include all themeasures laid down in Article 41 of the Charter;(b) sanctions should be imposed on SouthAfrica and Portugal, the Governments of which

had blatantly refused to carry out the manda-tory decisions of the Security Council.

(For full text of resolution and voting de-tails, See DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

During the Fourth Committee's debate, Mem-bers supporting the draft resolution said theillegal régime was persisting in its oppression ofthe people of Zimbabwe. The United Nations,they pointed out, had already denounced therebellion by the illegal régime; in addition, theSecurity Council was aware of the threat whichthat rebellion constituted to international peaceand security and had drawn attention to theresponsibility of the administering power in thatrespect. The situation in Southern Rhodesia wasdeteriorating because the United Kingdom, byrefusing to use force, was not only supportingthe illegal régime but was giving it time toentrench itself.

The sanctions imposed on the illegal régimeby the Security Council, these speakers said, hadfailed because several States, particularly SouthAfrica and Portugal, had not applied them.They denounced the torture of freedom fighterscaptured by the régime in Southern Rhodesiaand called on the United Kingdom to use forceto bring down the illegal régime.

The sponsors of the draft resolution stressedthe need to impose sanctions on South Africaand Portugal and to widen the scope of sanc-tions against the illegal régime. Adding to thedeterioration of the situation in Southern Rho-desia, they stated, was the intervention of armedSouth African forces. Such intervention, theypointed out, constituted a threat to the peopleof Zimbabwe and to neighbouring Africancountries.

The representative of the USSR, amongothers, said there was an alliance betweenSouth Africa, Portugal and Southern Rhodesiathrough which they were developing their mili-tary power and hoping to stop the liberationefforts of the peoples of southern Africa. Thesanctions imposed against Southern Rhodesiahad not produced the desired results becausethere was still a steady flow of trade with thecolonialist bloc. The volume of trade of theUnited Kingdom, the United States, the Fed-eral Republic of Germany and France withSouth Africa and Portugal amounted to morethan $3,000 million and it was common knowl-


edge that South Africa and Portugal refusedto apply economic sanctions against the Smithrégime and were openly trading with it. Theassistance that régime was receiving from mem-bers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) encouraged it to commit fresh crimes.The country mainly responsible for the situa-tion in Southern Rhodesia was the United King-dom, which should long since have taken stepsto transfer power to the African majority inaccordance with the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples.

The USSR representative also drew atten-tion to the activities of foreign economic inter-ests in southern Africa through which, he said,the Western powers were plundering the re-sources of the region and exploiting theAfricans. The situation was worsening andcalled for vigorous measures by the UnitedNations so that the people could exercise theirright to self-determination and independence.

The spokesman for Portugal stated thatthere were specific references to his country incertain of the operative paragraphs of the draftresolution which he considered unacceptableand which he therefore rejected. The Govern-ment of Portugal was continuing its policy ofnon-intervention with regard to the constitu-tional situation and internal affairs of SouthernRhodesia. For that reason, Portugal was keepingopen the means of communication not only withthe territory, which was land-locked, but alsowith countries which were hostile to it. If Por-tugal were to close down those communicationsunilaterally, other countries would suffer theconsequences. Moreover, the maintenance ofthose channels of communication would be ofno significance if no country had trading rela-tions with Southern Rhodesia.

The United Kingdom representative said thedraft resolution was very much the same as thatof the previous year, in that it reiterated thecall for the use of force and the demand for theextension of sanctions to South Africa andPortugal, and once again sought to condemnthe United Kingdom Government for the pres-ent situation. Where the present draft resolutionwent further, he said, was in pointing towardsforce and violence, seeking to impose unrealisticdemands and resorting to the facile language ofcondemnation. He wondered when heed would

be given to the warnings voiced in the GeneralAssembly about the risks for the future of theUnited Nations itself if resolutions continued tobe adopted which had no hope of being carriedout.

The United Kingdom representative went onto recall that the United Kingdom Secretary ofState for Foreign Affairs had said in the Assem-bly's general debate on 22 September 1969 thatto pass resolutions demanding the use of forceor a total economic confrontation with otherStates in southern Africa would be an errorwhich it would be foolish to commit, particu-larly when there existed a practical and effectiveway of proceeding: namely, to see that theSecurity Council's resolution 253(1968) of 29May 1968 was rigorously observed both in letterand in spirit.

No Member of the Committee, he added,could be in any doubt about where the UnitedKingdom stood with regard to the use of forcein Southern Rhodesia and on the question ofeconomic confrontation with South Africa. Heregretted that the wording of the draft resolu-tion made it impossible for the United Kingdomto support it.

The representative of Cuba said that, as Cubadid not consider that United Nations interven-tion in the question of Southern Rhodesiawould enable the people of Zimbabwe toachieve their freedom, it would not support thedraft resolution. The people of Zimbabwe hadno choice but to surrender to their enemies orto resist and fight until victory was won.

Botswana's representative expressed doubtsabout the advisability of extending sanctions toSouth Africa and continuing to call upon theUnited Kingdom to use force when the UnitedKingdom had said it would not do so. Botswanawould therefore abstain in the vote on the reso-lution.

The representative of Swaziland was of thesame view concerning the use of force and theextension of sanctions to cover South Africaand Portugal. He would, however, support thedraft resolution.

Venezuela, Uruguay, Colombia and Greecesaid they would support the draft resolutionalthough they had some reservations.

Venezuela said the Zimbabwe people couldderive no encouragement from the fact that theUnited Nations continued to condemn the


United Kingdom's failure to act and to takeeffective measures to bring down the régime, orthat the use of force was specifically proposedwhen it was well known that the United King-dom was not prepared to resort to force.

Uruguay considered that the use of force wasnot a desirable method of remedying the situ-ation, while Colombia considered that forceshould only be resorted to when all other pos-sible solutions had been exhausted.

Greece's representative said he did not sharethe general pessimism concerning the effective-ness of economic sanctions but he found sur-prising the proposals to extend these sanctionsto other Member States, since that was the ex-clusive prerogative of the Security Council.

The representative of Norway said his Gov-ernment fully supported United Nations policywith regard to Southern Rhodesia. His absten-tion on the draft resolution should in no waybe considered as a deviation from that generalpolicy. Norway, he said, did not share the beliefthat a recommendation to the United Kingdomto use force in Southern Rhodesia would con-tribute to a solution, and it did not believe thatthe General Assembly should seek to impose onthe specialized agencies the task of providingmaterial assistance to the liberation movements.

The representatives of Argentina, Mexico andTurkey said they had voted in favour of thedraft resolution although with some reserva-tions. Argentina had grave doubts about theeffectiveness of repeating earlier resolutionswhich had not been implemented. It also hadreservations about the paragraphs which re-ferred to the specialized agencies and whichencroached on the jurisdiction of the SecurityCouncil. The representative of Mexico said sev-eral paragraphs reiterated concepts which hadappeared in previous resolutions and to whichMexico had raised objections.

Other Members said that, while they fullysupported the ultimate objectives of the draftresolution, they had been obliged to abstain.Thus, Italy considered that many of the para-graphs of the draft resolution were contrary tothe Charter and bore no relation to reality. InBrazil's view, the General Assembly should notprejudge the work of the Security Council,which was studying the effects of sanctions, nordid it consider the use of force to be appropriatefor the solution of the problem.

Ireland said it had had to abstain becauseof the demand contained in the text that theUnited Kingdom should employ force to solvethe problem. Japan had abstained because ittoo opposed that demand, nor did it approvethe call for sanctions to be imposed againstSouth Africa and Portugal. Spain said the reso-lution included provisions that tried to produceresults which Spain could not accept since theyentailed complex legal questions whose settle-ment should be left to the Security Council.

The Netherlands and the United States ex-plained that, although they considered theSmith régime illegal, they had voted againstthe draft resolution because it contained pro-visions with which they could not agree. TheNetherlands said that, for instance, the GeneralAssembly ought not to recommend measures onmatters that were being considered by the Se-curity Council, unless the Council asked it to doso. Similarly, the use of force might bring aboutan escalation of the problem and aggravate thesufferings of the inhabitants. The United Statesconsidered that the use of force was an unac-ceptable solution, and it could not agree thatsanctions should be extended to Portugal andSouth Africa since such a course could onlycomplicate the situation further.

The representative of South Africa said thatin his Government's view the situation in South-ern Rhodesia was a matter to be settled betweenthat country and the United Kingdom. He had,he said, previously explained the presence ofSouth African police forces in Southern Rhode-sia, and he denied that their presence consti-tuted a danger to neighbouring countries.

OTHER DECISIONS OF

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

At its twenty-fourth session, the General As-sembly took several other decisions bearing onthe situation in Southern Rhodesia. These aredescribed briefly below.

FOREIGN ECONOMIC INTERESTS

On 12 December 1969, on the recommenda-tion of its Fourth Committee, the General As-sembly adopted resolution 2554(XXIV) on theactivities of foreign economic and other inter-ests impeding the implementation of the Decla-ration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples in Southern


Rhodesia, Namibia and territories under Portu-guese domination and in all other territories un-der colonial domination, and impeding effortsto eliminate colonialism, apartheid and racialdiscrimination in southern Africa.

In this resolution, the Assembly, among otherthings, expressed its conviction that any eco-nomic or other activity which impeded theimplementation of its resolution 1514(XV) of14 December 196038 and which obstructed ef-forts aimed at the elimination of colonialism,apartheid and racial discrimination in southernAfrica and other colonial territories violated thepolitical, economic and social rights and inter-ests of the people in those territories and wastherefore incompatible with the purposes andprinciples of the United Nations Charter.

The Assembly also reaffirmed the inalienableright of the peoples of dependent territories toself-determination and independence and to thenatural resources of their territories, as well astheir right to dispose of those resources in theirbest interest; and affirmed that foreign economicand other interests operating in colonial terri-tories which were exploiting those territoriesconstituted a major obstacle to political inde-pendence as well as to the enjoyment of thenatural resources of the territories by the indige-nous inhabitants.

Further, the Assembly declared that any ad-ministering power, by depriving the colonialpeoples of the exercise of their rights or by sub-ordinating them to foreign economic and finan-cial interests, violated the obligations it hadassumed under the Charter and impeded theimplementation of resolution 1514(XV) on thegranting of independence. It deplored the atti-tude of the colonial powers and States concernedwhich had not taken any action to implementthe relevant Assembly resolutions.

By its resolution, the Assembly also requestedthe administering powers and States concernedwhose companies and nationals were engaged insuch activities to take immediate measures toput an end to all practices which exploited theterritories and peoples under colonial rule, inconformity with relevant Assembly resolutions,in particular by preventing new investments—especially in southern Africa—which ran coun-ter to the objectives of the above-mentionedresolutions. The Assembly requested all Statesto take effective measures to cease forthwith the

supply of funds or other forms of economic andtechnical assistance to colonial powers whichused such assistance to repress the national lib-eration movements.

Finally, the Assembly asked the Special Com-mittee of 24 to continue to study the questionand report to the Assembly at its twenty-fifth(1970) session. (For further details, see pp.653-54.)

MEASURES TO COMBAT AND ELIMINATERACIAL DISCRIMINATION, Apartheid ANDSEGREGATION IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

On 11 December 1969, the General Assemblyadopted resolution 2547 A (XXIV) on meas-ures for effectively combating racial discrimina-tion and the policies of apartheid and segrega-tion in southern Africa.

By this resolution, the Assembly, among otherthings, called upon the United Kingdom toreconsider its deplorable refusal to intervene inSouthern Rhodesia by force and restore thehuman rights and fundamental freedoms of thepeople of Zimbabwe and in this manner, interalia, automatically ameliorate the conditions ofpolitical prisoners, detainees and captured free-dom fighters in Southern Rhodesia, as well asto ensure the application of the relevant GenevaConventions of 1949 to the situation prevailingin Southern Rhodesia.

The Assembly asked the Secretary-General toestablish, maintain and publicize an up-to-dateregister of persons subjected to imprisonment,detention, banishment and other restrictions,and of persons who had been victims of bru-tality, for their opposition to apartheid and racialdiscrimination, as well as of captured freedomfighters held in South Africa, Namibia, South-ern Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories inAfrica. It also asked the Secretary-General, inconsultation with the Committee of Trustees ofthe United Nations Trust Fund for SouthAfrica, to study the question of enlarging thescope; of the Fund to cover all persons in theterritories of Southern Rhodesia and Namibiapersecuted under repressive and discriminatorylegislation. (For further details, see pp. 502-6and 110-12.)

On 15 December 1969, the General Assemblyadopted another resolution (2547 B (XXIV)),

39 See footnote 15.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO AFRICA 131the text of which had been recommended bythe Economic and Social Council in its resolu-tion 1415 (XLVI). (For summary of resolution,see above, page 125, and for further details,see pp. 495-98.)

MANIFESTO ON SOUTHERN AFRICAOn 20 November 1969, the General Assem-

bly adopted a resolution (2505 (XXIV) ), notingthat it had received the Manifesto on SouthernAfrica adopted by the Assembly of Heads ofState and Government of the Organization ofAfrican Unity (OAU) at its sixth ordinary ses-sion in September 1969.

By the resolution, the General Assembly,convinced of the need for intensifying interna-tional efforts for the elimination of apartheid,racial discrimination and colonialism in orderthat peace and security in southern Africa beassured: (1) welcomed the Manifesto onSouthern Africa and recommended it to theattention of all States and all peoples; and (2)expressed the firm intention of the UnitedNations, acting in co-operation with OAU, tointensify its efforts to find a solution to thegrave situation in southern Africa.

(For further details, see pp. 147-52.)

CO-OPERATION OF SPECIALIZED AGENCIES

On 12 December 1969, the General Assemblyadopted resolution 2555 (XXIV) on the imple-mentation of the Declaration on the Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples by the specialized agencies and theinternational institutions associated with theUnited Nations.

In this resolution, among other things, theAssembly reiterated its appeal to the specializedagencies, the International Atomic EnergyAgency and the international institutions asso-ciated with the United Nations to extendtheir full co-operation to the United Nationsin the achievement of the objectives and pro-visions of Assembly resolution 1514(XV) of14 December 1960, on the granting of inde-pendence, and other relevant resolutions.

The Assembly also recommended that thespecialized agencies and international institu-tions concerned, as well as the various pro-grammes within the United Nations system,should give all possible assistance to the peoplesstruggling to liberate themselves from colonialrule and in particular to work out, within thescope of their respective activities and in co-operation with OAU and, through it, with thenational liberation movements, concrete pro-grammes for assisting the oppressed peoples ofSouthern Rhodesia, Namibia and the territoriesunder Portuguese administration.

Also recommended by the Assembly was thatall the specialized agencies and internationalinstitutions associated with the United Nations,particularly the International Civil AviationOrganization, the International Telecommuni-cation Union, the Universal Postal Union andthe Inter-Governmental Maritime ConsultativeOrganization, should work out, within the scopeof their respective activities, measures aimed atdiscontinuing any collaboration with the Gov-ernments of Portugal and South Africa, as wellas with the illegal racist minority régime inSouthern Rhodesia.

(For further details, see pp. 650-53.)

EDUCATIONAL AND TRAININGPROGRAMME FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA

Under the consolidated United Nations Edu-cational and Training Programme for SouthernAfrica, established by the General Assembly in1967,39 140 applications from Southern Rho-desia were received during the period from 1October 1968 to 30 September 1969. Thirty-sixnew awards were made and another sevenawards were extended. At the end of Septem-ber 1969, there were a total of 43 SouthernRhodesians studying abroad in eight countries.

(For additional information on the UnitedNations Educational and Training Programmefor Southern Africa, see pp. 646-48.)

3 9See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 649-50, text of GeneralAssembly resolution 2349(XXII).


COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTSTO THE SECURITY COUNCILS/8697/Add.l. Establishment of Committee of Secur-

ity Council in pursuance of para. 20 of Security

Council resolution 253(1968). Statement dated 27January 1969 by President of Security Council.

S/8786/Add.5-8, Add.S/Corr.l, Add.9-11. Report bySecretary-General in pursuance of resolution 253


(1968) adopted by Security Council at its 1428thmeeting on 29 May 1968 concerning situation inSouthern Rhodesia (addenda dated 30 January,3 and 19 March, 11 April, 6 and 17 June, and 23September 1969).

S/8954, S/9252 and Add.l. Reports, dated 30 Decem-ber 1968 and 12 June 1969, of Committee estab-lished in pursuance of Security Council resolution253(1968) of 29 May 1968.

S/8973. Note verbale of 20 January 1969 from Can-ada.

S/8984. Letter of 20 January 1969 from Chile.S/8996. Note verbale of 3 February 1969 from Czech-

oslovakia.S/9015. Note verbale of 30 January 1969 from Guy-

ana.S/9026, S/9027. Letters of 18 February 1969 from

Portugal.S/9052. Note verbale of 6 March 1969 from Ukrain-

ian SSR.S/9069. Note verbale of 11 March 1969 from Byelo-

russian SSR.S/9112. Note verbale of 20 March 1969 from Poland.S/9119. Note verbale of 25 March 1969 from Hungary.S/9244. Letter of 10 June 1969 from Chairman of

Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (trans-mitting text of resolution adopted by Special Com-mittee on 10 June 1969, meeting 698).

CONSIDERATION BYSECURITY COUNCIL(13-24 JUNE 1969)

SECURITY COUNCIL, meetings 1475-1481.

S/8954. Report, dated 30 December 1968, of Com-mittee established in pursuance of Security Councilresolution 253(1968) of 29 May 1968.

S/9237 and Add.1,2. Letter of 6 June 1969 fromAfghanistan, Algeria, Botswana, Burundi, Cam-eroon, Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chad,Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Con-go, Cyprus, Dahomey, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana,Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq. Ivory Coast,Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Mad-agascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius,Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Paki-stan, Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Southern Yemen,Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia,Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Republic, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugo-slavia, Zambia (request to convene Council).

S/9252 and Add.l. Second report, dated 12 June1969, of Committee established in pursuance ofSecurity Council resolution 253(1968) of 29 May1968.

S/9257, S/9260-S/9262, S/9267-S/9269, S/9272. Re-quests, dated 16-20 June 1969, to participate inCouncil's discussions, from Mauritania, United Re-public of Tanzania, India, Guinea, Somalia, Sudan,Saudi Arabia and Burundi.

S/9270 and Rev.l. Algeria, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal,Zambia: draft resolution and revision, rejected byCouncil on 24 June 1969, meeting 1481, by 8 votesin favour (Algeria, China, Hungary, Nepal, Paki-stan, Senegal, USSR, Zambia) to none against, with7 abstentions (Colombia, Finland, France, Para-guay, Spain, United Kingdom, United States).

OTHER COMMUNICATIONSS/9476 and Corr.1. Letter of 13 October 1969 from

Portugal.S/9510. Letter of 21 November 1969 from Secretary-

General (transmitting text of resolution 2508(XXIV) adopted by Assembly on 21 November1969, meeting 1816).

CONSIDERATION BYSPECIAL COMMITTEESpecial Committee on Situation with regard to Im-

plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, meet-ings 658, 659, 662-665, 676-679, 682, 684-687, 689,693,695-698, 714, 720.

A/7601. Annual report of Secretary-General on workof the Organization, 16 June 1968-15 June 1969,Chapter V A 1.

A/7623/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee of 24,Chapter VI. (Part B: Resolutions adopted by Spe-cial Committee on 26 March and 10 June 1969,meetings 665 and 698.)


GENERAL ASSEMBLY——24TH SESSION

General Committee, meetings 180, 181.Fourth Committee, meetings 1817-1837, 1839-1841,

1843.Plenary Meetings 1758, 1816.

A/7601. Annual report of Secretary-General on workof the Organization, 16 June 1968-15 June 1969,Chapter III H and Chapter V A, 2 and 3.

A/7602. Report of Security Council to General As-sembly, 16 July 1968-15 July 1969, Chapter 5.

A/7623/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee on Situ-ation with regard to Implementation of Declara-tion on Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples (covering its work during1969) Chapter VI.

A/7700. First report of General Committee, para. 8.A/7754. Co-operation between United Nations and

Organization of African Unity. Manifesto on South-ern Africa. Letter of 7 November 1969 from Kenya.

A/C.4/723 and Add.l. Requests for hearings.A/C.4/L.936 and Add.1,2. Afghanistan, Algeria,

Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Congo(Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Congo,Cyprus, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, India,Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Mali,Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria,Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, SierraLeone, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Togo,


Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Republic, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia:draft resolution, as orally amended by Trinidad andTobago, approved by Fourth Committee on 3 No-vember 1969, meeting 1841, by roll-call vote of79 to 8, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina,Barbados, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, ByelorussianSSR, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Re-public, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia,Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Con-go, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia,Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India,Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan,Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mada-gascar, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mon-golia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philip-pines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia,Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South-ern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidadand Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, UkrainianSSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Repub-lic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugo-slavia, Zambia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Netherlands, NewZealand, Portugal, South Africa, United Kingdom,United States.

Abstaining: Austria, Botswana, Brazil, Canada,Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland,Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho, Norway, Spain,Sweden.

A/7759. Report of Fourth Committee.

RESOLUTION 2508(xxiv), as proposed by Fourth Com-mittee, A/7759, adopted by Assembly on 21 No-vember 1969, meeting 1816, by recorded vote of83 to 7, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Barbados,Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, ByelorussianSSR, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Re-public, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Congo (Brazza-ville), Democratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus,Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana,Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India,Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan,Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya,Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania,Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria,Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Ro-mania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, SierraLeone, Singapore, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan,Syria, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey,Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Re-public, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta,Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Netherlands, NewZealand, South Africa, United Kingdom, UnitedStates.

Abstaining: Austria, Botswana, Brazil, Canada,Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Gabon, Honduras,Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho, Malawi,Norway, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden.

The General Assembly,Having considered the question of Southern Rho-

desia,Having heard the statement of the petitioner,Recalling its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 Decem-

ber 1960 containing the Declaration on the Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,

Recalling further all previous resolutions concerningthe question of Southern Rhodesia adopted by theGeneral Assembly and by the Special Committee onthe Situation with regard to the Implementation ofthe Declaration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples,

Bearing in mind the relevant resolutions of theSecurity Council, and particularly its resolutions 232(1966) of 16 December 1966 and 253(1968) of 29May 1968, in which the Council determined that thesituation constituted a threat to international peaceand security,

Deeply concerned about the deteriorating situationin Southern Rhodesia resulting from the introductionby the illegal racist minority régime of new measuresaimed at entrenching itself as well as repressing theAfrican people in violation of resolution 1514(XV),and about the continued presence of South Africanforces in the Territory,

Deeply concerned also about the persistent threatto the sovereignty and territorial integrity of neigh-bouring African States resulting from the existingsituation in Southern Rhodesia and the presence ofSouth African forces in the Territory,

Bearing in mind that the Government of the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, asthe administering Power, has the primary responsibil-ity for putting an end to the illegal racist minorityrégime in Southern Rhodesia and transferring effectivepower to the people of Zimbabwe on the basis ofmajority rule,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people ofZimbabwe to freedom and independence and the legit-imacy of their struggle to attain that right in con-formity with the provisions of General Assembly res-olution 1514(XV);

2. Declares illegal all measures taken by the racistminority régime to deprive the people of Zimbabweof their legitimate rights and to entrench its policiesof apartheid in Southern Rhodesia;

3. Condemns the failure and refusal of the Gov-ernment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland, as the administering Power, to takeeffective measures to bring down the illegal racistminority régime in Southern Rhodesia and to transferpower to the people of Zimbabwe on the basis ofmajority rule in accordance with all the relevant reso-lutions of the General Assembly;

4. Condemns the intervention of South Africanarmed forces in Southern Rhodesia, which constitutesan act of aggression against the people and territorial

134integrity of Zimbabwe, and calls upon the UnitedKingdom, as the administering Power, to ensure theimmediate expulsion of all South African forces fromSouthern Rhodesia;

5. Condemns the policies of the Governments ofSouth Africa and Portugal and other Governmentswhich continue to have political, economic, militaryand other relations with the illegal racist minorityrégime in Southern Rhodesia in contravention of therelevant United Nations resolutions, thereby violatingtheir obligations under the Charter of the UnitedNations;

6. Condemns the policies of those States whichmake it possible for their nationals to emigrate toSouthern Rhodesia in violation of Security Councilresolution 253(1968);

7. Calls upon the Government of the United King-dom, in fulfilment of its responsibility as the admin-istering Power, to take effective measures, includingthe use of force, to put an immediate end to theillegal racist minority régime in Southern Rhodesiaand to transfer all powers to the people of Zimbabweon the basis of majority rule ;

8. Calls upon the administering Power to ensurethe immediate release of the African nationalists whoare in detention and to prevent further assassinationand imprisonment of African nationalists in SouthernRhodesia;

9. Calls upon all States which continue to maintainpolitical, economic, military and other relations withthe illegal racist minority régime in Southern Rhodesiato bring them to an immediate end;

10. Calls upon all States, specialized agencies andother international organizations concerned to extendall moral and material assistance to the national libera-tion movements of Zimbabwe, in co-operation with theOrganization of African Unity;

11. Calls upon the Government of the United King-dom, in view of the armed conflict in the Territoryand the inhuman treatment of prisoner;, to ensure the

POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS

application to that situation of the Geneva Conventionrelative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War andof the Geneva Convention relative to the Protectionof Civilian Persons in Time of War, both dated 12August 1949;

12. Draws the attention of the Security Councilto the gravity of the situation arising from the inten-sification of suppressive activities against the peopleof Zimbabwe and from armed attacks perpetratedagainst neighbouring States in violation of interna-tional peace and security;

13. Reaffirms its conviction that the sanctions willnot put an end to the illegal racist minority régimein Southern Rhodesia unless they are comprehensive,mandatory, effectively supervised, enforced and com-plied with, particularly by South Africa and Portugal;

14. Further draws the attention of the SecurityCouncil to the urgent necessity of applying the fol-lowing measures envisaged under Chapter VII of theCharter:

(a) The scope of the sanctions against the illegalracist minority régime should be widened to includeall the measures laid down in Article 41 of the Charter;

(6) Sanctions should be imposed on South Africaand Portugal, the Governments of which have bla-tantly refused to carry out the mandatory decisionsof the Security Council;

15. Requests the Special Committee on the Situa-tion with regard to the Implementation of the Decla-ration on the Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples to keep the situation in theTerritory under review ;

16. Calls upon the administering Power to reportto the Special Committee on its action in the imple-mentation of the present resolution.

OTHERDOCUMENTSA Principle in Torment. I: The United Nations and

Southern Rhodesia. U.N.P. Sales No.: E.69.I.26.

THE QUESTION OF NAMIBIA

During 1969, the question of Namibia wasconsidered by the Security Council, by theUnited Nations Council for Namibia, whichmet throughout the year, by the General Assem-bly and by the General Assembly's Special Com-mittee on the Situation with regard to the Im-plementation of the Declaration on the Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples. Various aspects of the question werealso taken up by the Economic and SocialCouncil and the Commission on Human Rights.

The Security Council considered the questionof Namibia on two occasions, adopting resolu-tion 264(1969) on 20 March 1969 and reso-lution 269(1969) on 12 August 1969. Amongother things, the Security Council decided that

the continued occupation of Namibia by theSouth African authorities was an aggressiveencroachment on the authority of the UnitedNations, a violation of the territorial integrityand a denial of the political sovereignty of thepeople of Namibia. The Council called onSouth Africa to withdraw its administrationfrom the territory immediately.

The General Assembly adopted resolutions2498(XXIV) and 2517(XXIV) on 31 Octoberand 1 December 1969 respectively, again con-demning the Government of South Africa forits refusal to withdraw from Namibia. The As-sembly drew the attention of the Security Coun-cil to the need to take measures in accordancewith relevant provisions of the United Nations


Charter to solve the situation arising as a resultof South Africa's refusal to withdraw and itasked the Council for Namibia to continue todischarge the functions entrusted to it.

Various other General Assembly resolutionsrelated in part to the question of Namibia.These included, among other things, resolutionsdealing with the implementation of the Decla-ration on the Granting of Independence to

Colonial Countries and Peoples, with the activi-ties of foreign economic interests which im-peded implementation of the Declaration, withthe Manifesto on Southern Africa and withmeasures to combat racial discrimination andapartheid in southern Africa.

(For details about the decisions taken byUnited Nations organs in 1969 on the questionof Namibia, see pp. 675-701.)

RELATIONS BETWEEN AFRICAN STATES AND PORTUGAL

COMPLAINTS BY ZAMBIAAGAINST PORTUGAL

By a letter of 4 February 1969 to the Presi-dent of the Security Council, Zambia stated thata skirmish had taken place on 24 January 1969near Chingi, a Zambia police camp, in theBalovale District of Zambia, between Portu-guese and Zambian soldiers, resulting in thedeaths of three Portuguese soldiers.

In a letter dated 15 July 1969 to the Presi-dent of the Security Council, Zambia furthercharged Portugal with calculated violations ofthe territorial integrity of the Republic of Zam-bia and also, on 30 June 1969, with bombing,destruction of property, and the wounding andkilling of two unarmed civilians at Lote villagein the Katete District of the Eastern Provinceof Zambia, situated along the border of Mo-zambique. The letter recalled previous reports tothe Council of similar violations and requestedan early meeting of the Security Council toconsider the recent incidents.

On 18 July 1969, in a letter to the Presidentof the Security Council, the representatives of32 African States—Algeria, Cameroon, the Cen-tral African Republic, the Congo (Brazzaville),the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Da-homey, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon,Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Mada-gascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco,Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia,Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, the UnitedArab Republic, the United Republic of Tan-zania, Upper Volta and Zambia—subsequentlyjoined by Burundi, the Ivory Coast and Nigeria,stated on behalf of the Organization of AfricanUnity (OAU) that they supported Zambia's re-quest for a meeting and hoped that the SecurityCouncil would take, in accordance with Chap-ter VII of the United Nations Charter,40 the

measures necessary to put an end to the acts ofaggression by Portugal.

The Security Council considered the questionbetween 18 and 28 July 1969. The representa-tive of Portugal, at his request, was invited toparticipate without vote in the discussions. Simi-lar invitations were subsequently issued by theCouncil to the representatives of Liberia, Mada-gascar, Sierra Leone and Tunisia on behalf ofOAU, and to the representatives of the Demo-cratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Kenya,Somalia, the United Arab Republic and theUnited Republic of Tanzania.

During the Council discussions, the repre-sentative of Zambia said that between 18 May1966 and 30 June 1969 there had been 60Portuguese military incursions into Zambia fromAngola and Mozambique, 35 by land and 25by air. He cited specifically some 20 acts ofaggression that had resulted in the killing,wounding, and kidnapping of numerous inno-cent persons.

Despite negotiations and promises, he said,Portugal had continued to attack Zambia withincreasing frequency in the course of its colonialwar against the peoples of Angola and Mozam-bique. He indicated that such arms as membersof the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) made available to Portugal were usednot for the defence of Portugal or NATO coun-tries but for Portugal's oppressive colonialpolicy and against Zambia. Following its pre-ferred policy to negotiate bilaterally, the Zam-bian Government had taken up the question ofthe attacks on Lote village between 30 June and3 July with the Portuguese authorities, but thelatter's intransigence and rejection of the com-

40For text of Chapter VII of the United NationsCharter, see APPENDIX II.


plaint had led his Government to resort to theSecurity Council.

The Zambian representative warned Portugalthat if it persisted in its policy of aggression,Zambia reserved its inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Na-tions Charter.41 He asked the Council to callupon Portugal to cease its continuous., unpro-voked and premeditated aggression against Zam-bia, to release Zambian nationals kidnapped byPortuguese soldiers in Angola and Mozambique,and to make amends for the destruction ofZambian homes and property by armed Portu-guese units.

The representative of Portugal denied thespecific Zambian allegation concerning Lotevillage, stating that between 30 June and 3July Portuguese security forces had been at-tacked by armed raiders from Zambia. Describ-ing encounters with Zambian soldiers andarmed raiders inside Portuguese territory on 21and 23 June, he said that he could cite manymore such violations of Portuguese territory.

It was not in self-defence, he said, that Zam-bia had authorized hostile elements to estab-lish bases on its territory and had permittedfrequent armed attacks on the adjoining Portu-guese territories. Zambian armed forces, includ-ing the air force, had also been involved.Zambia must assume responsibility for attacksby elements proceeding from its territory andfleeing back for sanctuary. The PortugueseGovernment ensured obedience to strict instruc-tions to its own forces to respect the territorialintegrity of Zambia. Portugal also denied it wasusing NATO arms in Africa.

Portugal had tried to deal with these frontierproblems through the bilateral talks agreed toby Zambia, the Portuguese representative said.Despite Zambia's bypassing of the bilateraltalks by coming to the Security Council, Portu-gal was willing to continue to negotiate bilater-ally. The representative of Portugal formallyproposed investigation by the Mixed Luso-Zambian Commission, which had met occa-sionally since 1968. He also asked the SecurityCouncil to call upon Zambia to release twoPortuguese soldiers who had been invited to thefrontier on 16 June, treacherously arrested,subsequently found innocent and ordered re-leased .by the High Court of Zambia, yet whocontinued to be detained.

In reply, the Zambian spokesman stated thatthere was no permanent Zambian-Portuguesejoint commission to look into border incidents.Ad hoc committees had met from time to time.However, of the 60-odd incidents, only threehad been investigated and only one settled.Portugal had rejected Zambia's complaintabout the Lote incident; in the face of thatintransigence, Zambia had decided to come tothe Security Council.

Replying to the accusation that Zambia hadauthorized training bases for armed attacksagainst Portugal, he stated that Zambia hadcarried out its responsibilities to OAU and to theUnited Nations by opening its doors to thou-sands of refugees from Angola and Mozam-bique.

The representative of Zambia also said thathis Government would hand over the two de-tained invaders if Portugal would release kid-napped Zambian nationals, despite the fact thatone of those held by Zambia was the leader ofthe invading unit on 24 January 1969.

Portugal's spokesman denied that there wereany kidnapped Zambians in Portuguese terri-tory and stated that it should be a point ofhonour for Zambia to return the two detainedPortuguese soldiers.

During the Council's discussion, Somalia ex-pressed the view that Portugal's acts of aggres-sion against Zambia were part of a wider pat-tern of actions committed by Portugal againstAfrican States bordering on Angola, Mozam-bique and so-called Portuguese Guinea. Thisview was shared by the Democratic Republicof the Congo, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Mada-gascar, Nepal, Pakistan, the United Arab Re-public and the United Republic of Tanzania,among others. Other Portuguese actions werecited that several of those speakers felt perpetu-ated an inhuman colonialism and seriouslythreatened peace and security. These includedthe discredited practice by Portugal of the so-called right of pursuit under the guise of self-defence, Portugal's alliance with the racistrégimes of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia,and the military support to Portugal from itsNATO allies.

41For text of Article 51 of the United Nations

Charter, see APPENDIX II.


Pakistan stated that the United Nations, invarious resolutions, had long since recognizedthe legitimacy of national liberation movementsin all colonial countries and had invited allStates to provide those liberation movementswith material and moral assistance.

Kenya, among others, expressed the hopethat the Council would condemn Portugal notonly for its repeated acts of aggression againstZambia but also for its entire colonial policy.

Hungary and the USSR felt that Portugalshould also be condemned for suppressing byforce the liberation movement, recognized aslegitimate by the United Nations, of the peopleof Angola and Mozambique against Portuguesecolonialism. The USSR said that Portugal couldnot defy the United Nations without the sup-port of the NATO bloc and "the unholy alliance"of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and itself.

The representative of Finland said Portugal'srefusal to apply the Declaration on the Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples42 was the main cause for the continuoustension in the area, of which the incidents werebut symptoms.

The representative of France expressed regretthat the bilateral procedure had now been sus-pended by the parties. He said his Governmenthad asked for and had received firm commit-ments from Portugal that no war material sentto Portugal by France would be used againstany friendly African State.

On 28 July 1969, a draft resolution sponsoredby Algeria, Nepal, Pakistan and Senegal wasadopted.

By this text, the Council: (1) strongly cen-sured the Portuguese attacks on Lote village inthe Katete District of the Eastern Province ofZambia resulting in the loss of Zambian civilianlife and property; (2) called upon Portugal todesist forthwith from violating the territorialintegrity of, and from carrying out unprovokedraids against Zambia; (3) demanded the im-mediate release and repatriation of all civiliansfrom Zambia kidnapped by Portuguese militaryforces operating in the colonial territories ofAngola and Mozambique; (4) further de-manded from Portugal the return of all propertyunlawfully taken by Portuguese military forcesfrom Zambian territory; (5) declared that inthe event of failure on the part of Portugal tocomply with the second paragraph of this reso-

lution, the Security Council would meet to con-sider further measures; and (6) decided toremain seized of the matter.

The Council's decisions were embodied inresolution 268(1969), adopted by a vote of 11to 0, with 4 abstentions. (For text of resolution,See DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Spain and the United Kingdom, both ofwhich abstained on the vote, explained that thefacts of the incidents complained of were indispute and required further investigation beforeany decision could be taken. The United King-dom added that its abstention did not implycondonation of any Portuguese infringement ofZambian territory and that it regretted Portu-gal's continued denial of the basic right of self-determination to its African territories.

The United States, which also abstained, saidit was unable to support the draft resolutionbecause it had no impartial account of the de-velopments along the borders between Zambiaand Mozambique and Angola. That positionhad nothing to do with the United States atti-tude towards the more fundamental question ofself-determination for the Portuguese territories,the United States said.

COMPLAINTS BY SENEGALAGAINST PORTUGAL

By a letter dated 27 November 1969, Senegalrequested the President of the Security Councilto convene a meeting of the Council to considerits complaint that on 25 November regular Por-tuguese army forces situated at Bégène in Guinea(Bissau) had shelled the village of Samine insouthern Senegal, killing one woman and seri-ously wounding eight other persons, causingdamage to property, and rendering several vil-lagers homeless.

In a letter to the Council President dated 2December, that request was supported by thefollowing Member States: Algeria, Burundi,Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad,the Congo (Brazzaville), the Democratic Re-public of the Congo, Dahomey, Ethiopia, Ga-bon, Ghana, Guinea, the Ivory Coast, Kenya,Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madasgascar, Mali,Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Ni-geria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia,

42 See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50, resolution 1514(XV), for text of Declaration.


Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, the UnitedArab Republic, the United Republic of Tan-zania, Upper Volta and Zambia. The letterstated that those 36 Governments were demon-strating their solidarity with the sister State ofSenegal in conformity with the provisions of thecharter of the Organization of African Unity(OAU), and were also expressing Africa's con-cern at the threats and acts of aggression con-stantly committed by Portugal against the Afri-can States bordering on the territories underPortuguese domination.

The Security Council considered Senegal'scomplaint between 4 and 9 December. Therepresentatives of Guinea, Liberia, Madagascar,Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Portugal, SaudiArabia, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tunisia, the UnitedArab Republic and Yemen were invited, at theirrequest, to participate in the debate without theright to vote.

Senegal submitted another complaint on 7December for consideration by the Council.That complaint, which concerned renewedshelling of Samine and further casualties, wasconsidered with the previous one.

During the Council's discussions, the repre-sentative of Senegal cited numerous provoca-tive violations of Senegal's sovereignty and ter-ritorial integrity by Portuguese forces between8 April 1963 and November 1969, during whichperiod the Security Council had adopted tworesolutions—on 24 April 1963 and 19 May196543—both deploring such activities. Not-withstanding those resolutions, Portugal had infact intensified its aggression, he charged. Be-tween January and November 1969, the inci-dents had become more frequent and moreserious, with Portuguese armed forces violatingSenegalese air space and firing on Senegalesevillages every month.

If Portugal were to continue its provocations,the representative of Senegal said, his countrywould have no choice but to resort to force inorder to impose respect of its territorial sover-eignty and integrity.

The representative of Portugal then askedthree questions of the representative of Senegal :(1) whether or not anti-Portuguese organiza-tions dedicated to violence had been allowedto operate from bases in Senegal; (2) whether ornot Samine was such a base; and (3) whether

or not Senegal had contacted Portugal on itscomplaint before notifying the Security Council.

In reply to the questions posed by Portugal,the representative of Senegal stated that therewere in Senegal approximately 50,000 refugeesfrom Guinea (Bissau) who were supervised bythe Office of the United Nations High Com-missioner for Refugees, that the casualties atSamine had been civilians, and that Senegal hadno need to contact Portugal with regard to theincident, since it had addressed itself to theSecurity Council.

The representative of Portugal explained thatthe significance of his questions, which he saidhad not been answered, was to ascertainwhether in the case at issue the Portugueseforces had attacked or had reacted in self-defence. Since the beginning of the year, hestated, there had been many border violationsinvolving firing of mortars and heavy artilleryfrom Senegal, and armed attacks in whichSenegalese troops had sometimes participated.The crux of the problem, he maintained, wasthat all such incidents resulted from armedattacks by anti-Portuguese organizations thatwere allowed to operate from bases inside Sene-gal, of which Samine was one. Portugal hadlimited itself to actions strictly in conformitywith the needs of its rightful duty of self-defence.

Portugal's policy, he went on, had alwaysbeen to respect scrupulously the sovereignty andterritorial integrity of neighbouring countries;but in pursuit of invading raiders retreating tothose countries, an error might have occurredalong extensive and poorly demarcated borders.In his view, Senegal should have contactedPortugal so that a bilateral investigation andsettlement through conciliation could have takenplace. Portugal had no interest in antagonizingany African country and had unsuccessfullytried to seek co-operation and to conclude non-aggression pacts with the countries neighbouringits territories. However, those countries wereavowedly hostile to Portugal and were aidingand encouraging violence against Portugueseterritories in Africa.

With regard to the United Nations resolu-tions which had been referred to, the Portu-

43 See Y.U.N., 1963, p. 26, text of resolution 178(1963) of 24 April 1963; and Y.U.N., 1965, p. 136,text of resolution 204(1965) of 19 May 1965.


guese representative asserted that such resolu-tions were no more than recommendations thatMember States could accept or reject in theirsovereign judgements.

In later interventions, the representative ofSenegal denied a Portuguese allegation thatSenegalese forces had participated in attacksagainst Guinea (Bissau). In connexion withSenegal's second complaint of 7 December, hestated that Portugal's shellings and its lack ofrespect for the Council were its only answer tothe four-point peace plan for Guinea (Bissau)publicly proposed by the President of Senegal,namely: a cease fire, followed immediately bynegotiations between Portugal and the nation-alist movements, and a period of internalautonomy to be followed by independencewithin the framework of a Lusitanian-Africancommunity.

Portugal later said that information it hadobtained indicated no involvement by Portu-guese forces in the new incident at Samine on7 December.

During the debate, Algeria, Hungary, Liberia,Sierra Leone, the United Arab Republic, theUSSR, Zambia and others declared that thecomplaints against Portugal constituted genuinecases of aggression by Portuguese forces. Theyrejected as untenable Portugal's claim to haveacted in self-defence.

The representative of the United Arab Re-public pointed out that the attacks alleged byPortugal could not be considered attacks onPortuguese Guinea: they were attacks on theforces of colonialism and the occupiers ofGuinea (Bissau), a non-self-governing territoryentitled to self-government and independence.Many references were made to United Nationsresolutions, in particular to the General Assem-bly's resolution 2507 (XXIV) of 21 November1969, (see pp. 711-13), which had reaffirmed theinalienable right of the peoples in territoriesunder Portuguese domination to self-determi-nation and independence.

Liberia and Zambia were among those thatascribed Portugal's intransigence to the materialand moral support it obtained from its NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies andfrom South Africa and Southern Rhodesia.

The representative of the USSR stated that,contrary to certain illusions resulting from its

new leadership, Portugal, supported by its NATOallies, had actually increased its military ex-penditure, its armies and its police force in orderto fight the patriotic forces in its colonies. In-deed, he said, it had joined in alliance withthe fascist and racist régimes of South Africaand Southern Rhodesia, whose purpose was toprevent the liberation of the oppressed Africanpeople and to maintain considerable territoriesof Africa as a base for imperialism and as abeach-head against independent African coun-tries.

Whatever the reasons advanced by Portugal,France said it could not approve of actions con-trary to Article 2 of the United Nations Char-ter,44 which called on Member States to refrainfrom the use of force against the territorialintegrity of any State. France wished that Por-tugal had sought by bilateral negotiations asolution to difficulties for which Senegal ap-peared in no way responsible.

Colombia stated that its position was againstthe maintenance of all colonial régimes and infavour of the self-determination of peoples.

The representative of Finland said the com-plaint before the Council should be seen in thelarger context of Portugal's persistent refusal tomake any advance towards granting the peo-ples in territories under its administration theself-determination and independence to whichthey had an inalienable right.

Pakistan also argued that Senegal's com-plaint should be viewed in the wider contextof the confrontation between Portuguese colo-nialism and free Africa. To the Portuguese con-tention that such incidents should be settled bybilateral negotiations, the representative ofPakistan said the basic issue was not bilateralbut concerned the international community andthe primary responsibility of the Security Coun-cil for maintaining peace.

On 9 December 1969, the Security Counciladopted a resolution by which it: (1) stronglycondemned the Portuguese authorities for theshelling of the village of Samine on 25 Novem-ber and 7 December 1969; (2) again calledupon Portugal to desist forthwith from violatingthe sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sene-

44 For text of Article 2 of the Charter, see APPENDIX


gal; (3) declared that in the event of failure byPortugal to comply, the Security Council wouldmeet to consider other measures; and (4) de-cided to remain seized of the question.

The text, sponsored and orally amended byAlgeria, Nepal, Pakistan and Zambia, wasadopted as resolution 273(1969) by a vote of13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. (For text, see DOCU-MENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Explaining his Government's support for theresolution, the United Kingdom representativenoted that the Council was dealing not withthe policies of Portugal in Africa but with spe-cific complaints that had not been denied. HisGovernment in no way supported the policiesof Portugal in Africa, either by moral, militaryor economic means.

The United States, explaining its abstention,said the Council did not possess an impartiallyverified account of the incident, and force ap-peared to have been used on both sides. HisGovernment's position had repeatedly been oneof support for self-determination for the Portu-guese territories.

Spain, which also abstained, said it wouldhave preferred recourse to negotiations by theparties concerned; the primary responsibility ofthe Council in such a case was to ensure themaintenance of peace and to avoid a repetitionof events that might disturb it.

The representative of Portugal regretted thatthe resolution took no account of Portugal'sside and accepted as facts allegations that couldonly be proved by investigation on the spot. Thissituation, he said, raised serious doubts aboutthe usefulness of Portugal continuing to main-tain the attitude it had so far adopted towardsthe Council.

In a telegram dated 19 December 1969 to thePresident of the Security Council and circu-lated as a Security Council document, the Gov-ernment of the German Democratic Republiccondemned acts of aggression that had beencommitted by Portugal against Senegal andGuinea in violation of the Council's resolutionof 9 December 1969.

France, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates, in a letter dated 22 January 1970 to thePresident of the Council, stated that the pro-cedure followed with regard to the circulation ofthat communication implied that there existed

a Government other than that of the FederalRepublic of Germany entitled to speak as therepresentative of the German people in inter-national affairs. This, they stated, was not thecase, as the Government of the Federal Repub-lic of Germany was the sole German Govern-ment, freely and lawfully elected and thereforeauthorized to speak as the representative of theGerman people in international affairs.

The USSR, in a letter of 2 March 1970 tothe President of the Council, maintained thatstatements such as that made on 22 January1970 by France, the United Kingdom and theUnited States had no legal basis, since the cir-culation as official Council documents, on theinstructions of the President of the Council, ofcommunications addressed to him by States,including statements by a sovereign State suchas the German Democratic Republic, was quiteconsonant with established practice and pro-cedure applied in the United Nations.

COMPLAINTS BY GUINEAAGAINST PORTUGAL

In a letter dated 2 December 1969 to thePresident of the Security Council, Guineaalleged that another aggressive act had beencommitted against it when regular forces of thePortuguese army had repeatedly shelled twoGuinean villages several days before. On 4 De-cember, Guinea requested the President toconvene; a meeting of the Council to considerits complaint against Portugal.

Guinea's request for a meeting of the Councilwas supported by 40 African Member States ina letter to the Security Council President on 5December. Those 40 States were: Algeria,Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, the CentralAfrican Republic, Chad, the Congo (Brazza-ville), the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon,Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, the Ivory Coast,Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya. Madagascar,Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger,Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, So-malia, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia,Uganda, the United Arab Republic, the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Upper Volta andZambia.

In their letter, these States said they wereacting in accordance with the charter of theOrganization of African Unity (OAU) , which


required its members to promote mutual unityand solidarity and to eradicate all forms of colo-nialism from Africa. They were also expressingAfrica's concern at the threats and acts ofaggression constantly committed by Portugalagainst the African States bordering on the ter-ritories under its administration. They hopedthat the Council would take the necessary stepsunder Chapter VII of the United NationsCharter45 to end such acts of aggression.

On 12 December, Guinea again addressed thePresident of the Security Council, listing severalincidents of aerial bombing and mortar shellingof Guinean villages, and an attack by five Por-tuguese military patrol boats on the unarmedGuinean motor barge, the Patrice Lumumba,all said to have been committed between 13April and 13 November 1969 by Portuguesearmed forces situated in Guinea (Bissau). Manyhuts had been destroyed in those incidents, fourpersons were killed, and six were wounded; thefate of 21 of the 32 passengers abducted with thebarge was unknown.

In addition to the Guinean complaints, theSecurity Council had before it a letter dated 8October 1969 from the representative of OAUto the Secretary-General of the United Nationstransmitting a resolution adopted by the SixthAssembly of African Heads of State and Govern-ment in September 1969. By the resolution, theCouncil of Ministers, inter alia, condemned anact of piracy allegedly perpetrated by the Por-tuguese against a Guinean vessel in Guineanterritorial waters, called on Portugal to releasethe Guinean nationals it had detained and to re-turn the seized vessel, requested the Secretary-General of OAU to take steps to induce the inter-national community to force Portugal strictlyto observe the sovereignty of States, called onPortugal to offer a formal apology and to makegenerous compensation, and addressed an ur-gent appeal to the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations to use his influence to makePortugal return the Guinean vessel and releaseits passengers.

The complaint by Guinea was considered bythe Security Council between 15 and 22 De-cember 1969. The representatives of Bulgaria,the Congo (Brazzaville), India, Lesotho, Li-beria, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius,Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Syria,Tunisia and Yemen were invited, at their re-

quest, to participate in the discussion withoutthe right to vote.

During the Council's discussions, Guinea'srepresentative spoke of Portugal's record of actsof aggression and said that, after nine years ofprovocations, Guinea's patience had run out. Hegave a detailed account of the incidents listedin Guinea's letter of 12 December, recalled thatthe incident of the Patrice Lumumba had pro-voked swift reaction from OAU, and referred tothe continued detention by Portuguese authori-ties of a Guinean aircraft with two crew mem-bers, belonging to the national company of AirGuinea, that was said to have made a forcedlanding in Guinea (Bissau) in March 1968.

Guinea, its representative said, requested theCouncil to condemn Portugal unanimously andto demand that it return immediately theGuinean boat and aircraft, as well as all Guineannationals arbitrarily held in Guinea (Bissau),that it compensate the victims of its aggression,and that it cease all acts of provocation againstthe Republic of Guinea.

The representative of Portugal said it wouldrequire some time to investigate the allegationsin Guinea's letter of 12 December. His Govern-ment proposed that the Council should investi-gate the charges made on both sides so as toplace the responsibility where it belonged.

Stating that Guinea had apparently taken itupon itself to enforce the resolutions of theGeneral Assembly, Portugal's spokesman re-called that those were only recommendationsto be accepted or rejected by Member States inexercise of their sovereign right. He deniedGuinea's contention that Portugal was perma-nently, constantly, and daily committing aggres-sion; on the contrary, it was Guinea, aided byforeign powers outside Africa, that had author-ized the organization of violent movements tooperate against Portuguese Guinea, as witnessone incident in August and ten in November1969, when six frontier villages there had beenattacked by rocket, mortar and long-range artil-lery coming directly from inside Guinea.

With regard to the Guinean motor barge andairplane, Portugal was prepared, its representa-tive stated, to consider the release of the planeand its crew and the boat and its passengers oncondition that Guinea first release and return

45 See footnote 40.


24 Portuguese military personnel, unlawfullykidnapped from Portuguese Guinea and de-tained in Guinea.

Later in the discussion, Portugal's representa-tive denied Guinea's allegations of shellingsupposed to have taken place on 10 Septemberand 13 November 1969, and said his Govern-ment had no evidence of any air raid;; or shellingalleged to have occurred over the previous sixmonths. He claimed that three PortugueseGuinea villages had suffered four attacks on 12and 17 December by shelling or by armed bandsfrom Guinea. Whatever action Portugueseforces might have taken in reply, its representa-tive emphasized, had occurred on Portugueseterritory, and had always been exclusively inself-defence, the right to which was clearly en-shrined in Article 51 of the United NationsCharter.46

The representative of Guinea replied thatPortugal had implicitly recognized its guilt forits acts of aggression. The fact was that Portugalwas unwilling to admit the successes of the na-tional army of liberation of Guinea (Bissau),which was now in effective control of a part ofthat territory. Frustrated by such reversals, Por-tugal had turned to indiscriminate bombing ofthe liberated part of the territory and neighbour-ing countries.

Concerning the release of the Portuguesemilitary personnel claimed to be held in Guinea,the Guinean representative said that if therewere such soldiers held by the national libera-tion movements, it was up to Portugal to enterinto a dialogue with those liberation movementsover their release.

During the course of the debate, the repre-sentatives of Algeria, Hungary, Nepal, Pakistan,the USSR and Zambia,, among others, con-demned Portugal for acts of aggression againstGuinea which they said followed the pattern ofactive hostility against all the African countriesadjoining Portugal's colonial territories of An-gola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau). Be-hind the specific complaints, they stated, wasPortugal's anachronistic colonial policy and itsstubborn refusal to heed numerous UnitedNations resolutions.

The border clashes between Portuguese terri-tories and the neighbouring African countriesresulted inevitably from the activities of na-tional freedom fighters whom all States had not

only a right but a duty to help, they argued. Itwas stated that the right of self-defence couldnot be invoked to perpetuate colonialism and toflout the right of self-determination and inde-pendence. Several speakers ascribed Portugal'sintransigence to the material and moral supportit obtained from its North Atlantic Treaty Or-ganization (NATO) partners and from SouthAfrica and Southern Rhodesia.

Syria said that the situation caused by Por-tugal's perpetuation of colonialism and harass-ment of independent States in Africa had beendeclared by the United Nations to be a crimeagainst humanity.

Before India's representative spoke, the Por-tuguese representative withdrew from the Coun-cil Chamber, stating that Portugal recognizedno moral right for India to participate in thedebate, since in 1961 it had committed pre-meditated aggression against Goa, an overseasprovince of Portugal, and had been condemnedby the Council.

The representative of India said that he wasnot ashamed to declare that if colonies couldnot be liberated through peaceful efforts, thenthere was no alternative but to drive out thecolonial power by force. In the case before theCouncil, he said, India's position was that theprocess of bilateral negotiation was not appli-cable because the United Nations was com-mitted to the elimination of colonial régimes,and Portugal had refused to abide by that prin-ciple or to carry out any of the relevant resolu-tions adopted by the United Nations.

On 19 September, a draft resolution spon-sored by Algeria, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal andZambia was submitted to the Council. By itsoperative paragraphs, the Security Councilwould: (1) deeply deplore the loss of life andheavy damage to several Guinean villages in-flicted by the Portuguese military authoritiesoperating from bases in Guinea (Bissau) ; (2)call upon Portugal to desist forthwith from vio-lating the sovereignty and territorial integrity ofthe Republic of Guinea; (3) call upon the Por-tuguese authorities in Guinea (Bissau) imme-diately to release the Guinean civilian planewhich was captured on 26 March 1968, togetherwith the pilots thereon; (4) further call uponthe Portuguese authorities in Guinea (Bissau)

46See footnote 41.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO AFRICA 143immediately to release the Guinean motor barge,Patrice Lumumba, which was captured on 27August 1969, together with the passengersthereon; (5) solemnly warn Portugal that ifsuch acts were to be repeated in future, theCouncil would have to consider seriously fur-ther steps to give effect to this decision.

The Security Council, on 22 December 1969,adopted the text as resolution 275(1969) by avote of 9 to 0, with 6 abstentions. (For text, seeDOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

China, Colombia, France, Spain, the UnitedKingdom and the United States, which ab-stained on the draft resolution, all consideredthat the Council did not have objective andsufficiently complete information on the con-flicting allegations. The United Kingdom sug-gested that in future the Council might con-sider the possibility of instituting an impartial,on-the-spot investigation of such complaints.China, Colombia and France reiterated their

opposition to colonialism and adherence to theprinciple of self-determination.

Portugal recorded its reservations concerningthe resolution, which it termed patently one-sided and unwarranted by the facts available tothe Council.

Guinea stated that the resolution was com-pletely satisfactory. Beyond its condemnationswas the re-affirmation of the General Assembly'sresolution of 14 December 196047 on the grant-ing of independence to colonial countries andpeoples, and the permanent conflict arising fromPortugal's non-acceptance of that Assemblyresolution. Guinea appealed again to Portugal tolisten to reason and enter into a dialogue withthe freedom fighters. The only wish of the Afri-can peoples was for their independence and free-dom, Guinea said.

47See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50, text of resolution1514(XV).


COMPLAINTS BY ZAMBIAAGAINST PORTUGAL


S/8993. Letter of 4 February 1969 from Zambia.S/9331. Letter of 15 July 1969 from Zambia (request

to convene Council).S/9335. Telegram of 16 July 1969 from Portugal

(request to participate in Council's discussions.)S/9340 and Add.1-3. Letter of 18 July 1969 from

Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Re-public, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republicof Congo, Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia,Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia,Libya, Madagascar, Mali. Mauritania, Mauritius,Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal. SierraLeone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda,United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tan-zania, Upper Volta and Zambia (supporting requestto convene Council).

S/9341, S/9348, S/9350, S/935I. Requests, dated 18,22 and 23 July 1969, to participate in Council'sdiscussions, from United Republic of Tanzania,Somalia, Kenya and United Arab Republic.

S/9355. Letter of 24 July 1969 from Liberia, Mada-gascar, Sierra Leone and Tunisia (request to par-ticipate in Council's discussions).

S/9356, S/9357. Letters of 24 July 1969 from Gabonand Democratic Republic of Congo (requests toparticipate in Council's discussions).

S/9360. Algeria, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal: draftresolution.

S/9363. Letter of 28 July 1969 from Zambia (trans-mitting Manifesto on Southern Africa adopted by

Fifth Summit Conference of East and Central Af-rican States, Lusaka, Zambia, 14-16 April 1969).

RESOLUTION 268(1969), as submitted by 4 powers,S/9360, adopted by Council on 28 July 1969,meeting 1491, by 11 votes to 0, with 4 abstentions(France, Spain, United Kingdom, United States).

The Security Council,Having heard the statements by the parties,Mindful of its responsibility to take effective col-

lective measures for the prevention and removal ofthreats to international peace and security,

Bearing in mind that all States should refrain intheir international relations from the threat or use offorce against the territorial integrity or political inde-pendence of any State or in any manner inconsistentwith the purposes of the United Nations,

Concerned about the grave situation created by thePortuguese bombing of Lote village in the KateteDistrict of the Eastern Province of Zambia borderingthe Territory of Mozambique,

Gravely concerned that incidents of this nature en-danger international peace and security,

1. Strongly censures the Portuguese attacks on Lotevillage in the Katete District of the Eastern Provinceof Zambia resulting in the loss of Zambian civilianlife and property :

2. Calls upon Portugal to desist forthwith fromviolating the territorial integrity of, and from carry-ing out unprovoked raids against. Zambia;

3. Demands the immediate release and repatria-tion of all civilians from Zambia kidnapped by Portu-guese military forces operating in the colonial Terri-tories of Angola and Mozambique;


4. Further demands from Portugal the return ofall property unlawfully taken by Portugese militaryforces from Zambian territory;

5. Declares that in the event of failure on the partof Portugal to comply with paragraph 2 of the presentresolution, the Security Council will meet to considerfurther measures ;

6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

A/7602. Report of Security Council to General As-sembly, 16 July 1968-15 July 1969, part IV,Chapter 10.

COMPLAINTS BY SENEGALAGAINST PORTUGAL


S/9513. Letter of 27 November 1969 from Senegal(request to convene Council).

S/9519. Telegram of 2 December 1969 from Portugal(request to participate in Council's discussions).

S/9524 and Add.l. Letter of 2 December 1969 fromAlgeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Re-public, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Re-public of Congo, Dahomey, Ethiopia, Gabon,Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Li-beria, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mau-ritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal,Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia,Uganda, United Arab Republic, United Republicof Tanzania, Upper Volta, Zambia (supportingrequest to convene Council).

S/9525. Letter of 2 December 1969 from Guinea(request to participate in Council's discussions).

S/9528. Letter of 4 December 1969 from Guinea(request to convene Council).

S/9529. Letter of 3 December 1969 from Morocco(request to participate in Council's discussions).

S/9531 and Rev.l. Letter of 4 December 1969 fromLiberia, Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Tunisia(request to participate in Council's discussions).

S/9533-S/9536, S/9538, S/9539. Requests, dated 3and 5 December 1969, to participate in Council'sdiscussions from Mali, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria,United Arab Republic and Mauritania.

S/9541. Letter of 7 December 1969 from Senegal(request to convene Council).

S/9542 and Rev.l. Algeria, Nepal, Pakistan, Zambia:draft resolution and revision.

RESOLUTION 273(1969), as submitted by 4 powers,S/9542/Rev.l, as orally amended by sponsors,adopted by Council on 9 December 1969, meeting1520, by 13 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions (Spain,United States).

The Security Council,Taking note of the complaints by Senegal against

Portugal contained in documents S/9513 and S/9541,Conscious of its responsibility for taking effective

collective measures to forestall and eliminate threatsto international peace and security,

Bearing in mind that all States must refrain in

their international relations from recourse to the threator use of force againt the territorial integrity orpolitical independence of any State or in any mannerincompatible with the purposes of the United Nations,

Concerned about the serious situation created bythe shelving of the village of Samine in the southernregion of Senegal from the Bégène base,

Deeply concerned at the fact that incidents of thisnature jeopardize international peace and security,

Bearing in mind its resolutions 178(1963) of 24April 1963 and 204(1965) of 19 May 1965,

1. Strongly condemns the Portuguese authoritiesfor the shelling of the village of Samine, which (1)on 25 November caused one death and seriouslywounded eight persons, struck a building of the Sen-egalese gendarmerie and completely destroyed twohouses in the village of Samine, and (2) on 7 De-cember 1969 caused five deaths and seriously woundedone woman;

2. Again calls upon Portugal to desist forthwithfrom violating the sovereignty and territorial integrityof Senegal;

3. Declares that in the event of failure by Portugalto comply with paragraph 2 of the present resolution,the Security Council will meet to consider othermeasures;

4. Decides to remain seized of the question.

S/9579. Telegram of 19 December 1969 from GermanDemocratic Republic.

S/9624. Letter of 22 January 1970 from France,United Kingdom and United States.

S/9674. Letter of 2 March 1970 from USSR.

COMPLAINTS BY GUINEAAGAINST PORTUGAL


S/9468. Letter of 8 October 1969 from PermanentRepresentative of Organization of African Unity(OAU) to Secretary-General (transmitting text oftwo resolutions adopted by 6th session of Assemblyof African Heads of State and Government, AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, 6-10 September 1969, and resolu-tion adopted at 13th session of OAU Council ofMinisters, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 27 August-6September 1969).

S/9525. Letter of 2 December 1969 from Guinea.S/9528. Letter of 4 December 1969 from Guinea

(request to convene Council).S/9549. Letter of 5 December 1969 from Algeria,

Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Re-public, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Re-public of Congo, Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea,Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, IvoryCoast Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar,Mali. Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Ni-geria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia,Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, UnitedArab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Up-per Volta and Zambia (supporting request to con-vene Council).

S/9554. Letter of 12 December 1969 from Guinea.


S/9555, S/9561, S/9562. Letters of 13, 16 and 17December 1969 from Portugal, Syria and Congo(Brazzaville) (requests to participate in Council'sdiscussions).

S/9563. Letter of 17 December 1969 from Liberia,Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Tunisia (request toparticipate in Council's discussions).

S/9564-S/9568, S/9572, S/9573. Letters of 17-19December 1969 from Lesotho, Saudi Arabia, Libya,Yemen, India, Mauritius and Bulgaria (requests toparticipate in Council's discussions).

S/9574. Algeria, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal, Zambia:draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 275(1969), as submitted by 5 powersS/9574, adopted by Council on 22 December 1969,meeting 1526, by 9 votes (Algeria, Finland, Hun-gary, Nepal, Pakistan, Paraguay, Senegal, USSR,Zambia) to 0, with 6 abstentions (China, Colombia,France, Spain, United Kingdom, United States).The Security Council,Having noted the contents of the letters of the rep-

resentative of Guinea in documents S/9525, S/9528and S/9554,

Observing that incidents of this nature jeopardizeinternational peace and security,

Mindful that no State should act in any manner

inconsistent with the principles and purposes of theCharter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned with any and all such attacks byPortugal directed against independent African States,

Grieved at the extensive damage caused by the Por-tuguese shelling of Guinean villages from positions inthe Territory of Guinea (Bissau),

1. Deeply deplores the loss of life and heavy dam-age to several Guinean villages inflicted by the Portu-guese military authorities operating from bases inGuinea (Bissau) ;

2. Calls upon Portugal to desist forthwith fromviolating the sovereignty and territorial integrity ofthe Republic of Guinea ;

3. Calls upon the Portuguese authorities in Guinea(Bissau) to immediately release the Guinean civilianplane which was captured on 26 March 1968 togetherwith the pilots thereon ;

4. Further calls upon the Portuguese authorities inGuinea (Bissau) to immediately release the Guineanmotor barge, Patrice Lumumba, which was capturedon 27 August 1969, together with the passengersthereon ;

5. Solemnly warns Portugal that if such acts wereto be repeated in future, the Council would have toseriously consider further steps to give effect to thisdecision.

RELATIONS BETWEEN EQUATORIAL GUINEA AND SPAIN

In cables to the Secretary-General dated 27 and28 February 1969, the President of EquatorialGuinea charged that Spain had committed aseries of provocative acts in violation of thesovereignty of Equatorial Guinea, includingmobilizing and deploying Spanish armed forcesstationed in his country, merely because theSpanish diplomatic mission had been asked toreduce its flags to the same number as otheraccredited embassies. He requested the urgentdispatch of a United Nations peace force.

On 1 March, the Secretary-General repliedby cable that the President's request for suchpeace forces would require the authorization ofthe Security Council, which would have to beconvened for that purpose by the interestedparty.

The representative of Spain addressed sevenletters to the Secretary-General between 28February and 8 March concerning the situationin Equatorial Guinea. Stating that the flag atthe Spanish Consulate at Bata had been forciblylowered by the Guinean authorities after theConsul had asked them to direct their requestfor its removal to the Spanish Government, hedeclared that when the flag was raised again on

25 February, the Consul had taken measures toprotect the flag and Spanish nationals. Suchmeasures did not involve the mobilization offorces. The units totalling 260 men stationedsince 12 October 1968, in accordance with theTransitory Agreement signed by the two Gov-ernments, were now confined to barracks, hesaid. They had taken no action that was con-trary to that Agreement or that would impairthe sovereignty of Equatorial Guinea.

Spain had no intention of becoming involvedin Equatorial Guinea's domestic problems, hesaid. Its only concern was with Spaniards resid-ing there, for the Government had stated itsinability to guarantee their protection. Oncetheir safety had been guaranteed, Spain wasready to seek any formula satisfactory to Equa-torial Guinea.

Spain's letter of 1 March said that the atmos-phere of insecurity created by threats hadprompted Spanish nationals to seek refuge inBata, and two ships had been dispatched toevacuate those who so requested.

On 3 March, Spain wrote that it informedthe Government of Equatorial Guinea of itsintention to withdraw its military forces from


that country as soon as the last Spaniard volun-tarily electing to leave had departed, and itnoted it expected co-operation from the Gov-ernment to permit withdrawal within 15 days.

On 6 March, Spain wrote that internal strifebetween political groups in Equatorial Guineamade the proposed evacuation essential. Re-calling that on 1 March Spain had indicated itwould be pleased if the Secretary-General desig-nated a personal representative to make an on-the-spot inquiry, the Spanish representative re-quested the Secretary-General to take measuresto facilitate the evacuation, which had not yetbeen authorized by the Government of Equa-torial Guinea.

In cables to the Secretary-General on 2 and5 March, the President of Equatorial Guineaurged the withdrawal of the Spanish forces andagain requested the Secretary-General to dis-patch United Nations peace forces. He also in-formed the Secretary-General of the failure ofan attempted coup d'état and his full controlof the situation.

The Secretary-General offered on 2 and 5March to send a personal representative, if thePresident had no objections, to EquatorialGuinea. In his cable of 5 March, the Secretary-General again stated that the dispatch of UnitedNations forces required authorization by the Se-curity Council. In the absence of objection, andin view of continued difficulties between Equa-torial Guinea and Spain, the Secretary-Generalinformed the President of Equatorial Guinea on7 March that he had appointed as his repre-sentative Marcial Tamayo, who would arriveon 10 March to offer his good offices to helpsolve the difficulties between those countries andto reduce the consequent tension.

On 8 March, the representative of Spainthanked the Secretary-General for appointingMr. Tamayo. On 18 March, the President ofEquatorial Guinea also thanked the Secretary-General for sending his personal representative,whose presence, he wrote, had been crucial tothe conversations bearing on the calm desired inhis country.

The Secretary-General's decision to send arepresentative gave rise to an exchange of lettersbetween the President of the Security Counciland the Secretary-General, as well as to a letterfrom the USSR. In letters of 7 and 10 March,

the President of the Security Council indicatedthat he had brought to the attention of the mem-bers of the Council the content of a consulta-tion that he and the Secretary-General had hadwith regard to the dispatch to Equatorial Guineaof the Secretary-General's personal representa-tive. He considered their meeting an exchangeof information and views connected with themaintenance of international peace and securitywhich, in accordance with the United NationsCharter fell within the competence of the Se-curity Council.

Replying to the Council President, on 7 and10 March, the Secretary-General indicated thathe had told the President of the SecurityCouncil, as a matter of information, of his in-tention to send a representative to EquatorialGuinea, but that his action had not been aconsultation in any sense. He added that he hadtaken similar action several times in the pastwithout prior consultation with the Presidentor members of the Security Council; on thoseoccasions he had only reported without delay tothe Council the action taken on his own initia-tive (as he had been in the process of doing inthe present case) and had not intended to estab-lish any precedent of prior consultation.

On 19 March, the USSR transmitted to theSecurity Council the text of a letter to theSecretary-General in which it stated that itcould not refrain from drawing attention to thefact that the Secretary-General had sent Mr.Tamayo to Equatorial Guinea as his personalrepresentative with extensive powers to assistEquatorial Guinea in the solution of its differ-ences with Spain, to help the parties settle theirdifficulties peacefully, and to lessen tension inEquatorial Guinea. The USSR emphasized that,under the United Nations Charter, decisions onmatters connected with action by the UnitedNations relating to the maintenance of inter-national peace and security were taken by theSecurity Council, a position of principle that theUSSR had stated on previous occasions.

After the arrival of Mr. Tamayo in Equa-torial Guinea on 10 March, the Secretary-General submitted a series of reports to theSecurity Council based on information receivedfrom Mr. Tamayo in the course of discussionshe had held with the authorities of EquatorialGuinea, the Ambassador and Chargé d'affaires

QUESTIONS RELATING TO AFRICA 147of Spain, and representatives sent by the Or-ganization of African Unity. Among the mattersdiscussed were the withdrawal of all Spanisharmed forces stationed in Equatorial Guinea,the departure of Spanish civilians wishing toleave the country, and guarantees for thosewishing to remain.

Communications concerning the withdrawaland having to do with relations between Equa-torial Guinea and Spain were submitted to theSecretary-General by Spain on 21 and 22 March.

The Secretary-General reported that repre-sentatives of both parties signed a document on5 April certifying the complete withdrawal of allSpanish armed forces stationed in EquatorialGuinea and the simultaneous departure of allSpanish citizens who had expressed the wish toleave, and indicating that both operations hadbeen carried out in an orderly and peacefulmanner through the agency of Mr. Tamayoand members of his mission.

The Secretary-General also advised the Se-curity Council that it had been agreed that theWorld Health Organization would send a team

of experts to Equatorial Guinea to assess themedical situation, in view of the departure ofSpanish doctors, and that the Regional Repre-sentative of the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme would assist in an over-all assess-ment of the urgent needs of the country. Inaddition, he reported, the International Com-mittee of the Red Cross had proposed a pro-gramme to cope with medical and health prob-lems in Fernando Poo, Equatorial Guinea, andthe United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees had sent a mission to discuss problemswithin its competence, including the situationof Nigerian workers in Equatorial Guinea.

The Secretary-General further reported thathis representative had left Equatorial Guineaon 9 April, and members of the mission staffwho had remained to wind up the affairs of themission had left the country on 21 April.

On 8 April, in a letter addressed to theSecretary-General, Spain reaffirmed its willing-ness to consider any proposals for assistance andcollaboration put before it by the Governmentof Equatorial Guinea.


S/9034 and Add.l. Cables of 27 and 28 February1969 from Equatorial Guinea.

S/9035 and Add.l, S/9036 and Add.l. Letters of 28February, 1 and 3 March 1969 from Spain.

S/9037. Cable of 2 March 1969 from EquatorialGuinea.

S/9040. Letter of 4 March 1969 from Spain.S/9046, S/9047. Cables of 5 March 1969 from Equa-

torial Guinea.S/9049. Letter of 6 March 1969 from Spain.S/9053 and Add.2-12. Reports by Secretary-General,

dated between 7 March and 5 May 1969.S/9053/Add.l. Cable of 7 March 1969 from Secre-

tary-General to President of Equatorial Guinea.S/9054. Letter of 7 March 1969 from President of

Security Council to Secretary-General.S/9055. Letter of 7 March 1969 from Secretary-Gen-

eral to President of Security Council.S/9056, S/9058. Letters of 8 March 1969 from Spain.

S/9066. Letter of 10 March 1969 from President ofSecurity Council to Secretary-General.

S/9067. Letter of 10 March 1969 from Secretary-General to President of Security Council.

S/9082. Letter of 14 March 1969 from Spain.S/9101. Letter of 19 March 1969 from USSR.S/9103. Letter of 20 March 1969 from Equatorial

Guinea.S/9104. Letter of 21 March 1969 from Spain.S/9105, S/9142. Letters of 22 March and 8 April

1969 from Spain.A/7601. Annual report of Secretary-General on work

of the Organization, 16 June 1968-15 June 1969,Chapter III L.

A/760 I/Add. 1. Introduction to annual report of Sec-retary-General, September 1969, paras. 202-204.

A/7602. Report of Security Council to General Assem-bly, 16 July 1968-15 July 1969, part IV, Chapter12.

MANIFESTO ON SOUTHERN AFRICA

On 20 November 1969, the General Assemblywelcomed the Manifesto on Southern Africaadopted by the Heads of State and Governmentof the Organization of African Unity (OAU) inSeptember 1969. (The document had beendrawn up earlier by the leaders of East and

Central African States at Lusaka, Zambia, on16 April 1969, and was frequently referred toas the Lusaka Manifesto.)

The Assembly also expressed the firm inten-tion of the United Nations, acting in co-opera-tion with OAU, to intensify its efforts to find a


solution to the grave situation in southern Af-rica. It took these actions with the adoption ofresolution 2505 (XXIV).

The matter came before the Assembly at therequest of the following 39 Members: Algeria,Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, the CentralAfrican Republic, Chad, the Congo (Brazza-ville), the Democratic Republic of the: Congo,Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gam-bia, Ghana, Guinea, the Ivory Coast, Kenya,Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mali,Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Ni-geria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia,Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, theUnited Arab Republic, the United Republic ofTanzania, Upper Volta and Zambia. TheseMembers proposed inclusion in the agenda of anitem entitled: "Co-operation between theUnited Nations and the Organization of Afri-can Unity: Manifesto on Southern Africa."

In an explanatory memorandum accompany,ing their letter of request of 16 October 1969,these Members pointed out that the Manifestohad been adopted by the Assembly of the Headsof State and Government of OAU at AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, and that the OAU Assemblyhad requested that the Manifesto be submittedto the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The African States, they noted, consideredthe Manifesto to be an authoritative expressionof their collective views and policies with regardto the colonial questions in southern Africa andof their expectations in terms of commitmentfor action from the United Nations and itsMembers. They requested the General Assem-bly to consider the Manifesto and take due noteof it.

The text of the Manifesto was later circulatedto Assembly Members.

The Manifesto stressed that all men wereequal, and had equal rights to human dignityand respect, regardless of colour, race, religionor sex. The African States, it was noted, did notaccept that any one group within a society hadthe right to rule without the continuing consentof all the citizens.

Acknowledging that within their own Statesthe struggle towards human brotherhood andunchallenged human dignity was only begin-ning, those issuing the Manifesto stated that itwas on the basis of their commitment to human

equality and dignity, not on the basis ofachieved perfection, that they took their standof hostility towards the colonialism and racialdiscrimination that was being practised in south-ern Africa. If such a commitment to these prin-ciples existed among the States holding powerin southern Africa, they added, they would notbe justified in expressing such hostility towardsthe régimes of southern Africa. The truth was,however, that in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia,Rhodesia and South Africa, there was an openand continued denial of the principles of humanequality and national self-determination.

Their stand towards southern Africa thus in-volved a rejection of racialism, not a reversalof the existing racial domination. They weredemanding an opportunity for all the people ofthese States to work out for themselves the insti-tutions and the system of government underwhich they would live and work together.

The liberation of Africa thus referred to twothings, they said. First, that peoples still undercolonial rule should be free to determine theirown institutions of self-government. And, sec-ond, that individuals in southern Africa shouldbe freed from an environment poisoned by thepropaganda of racialism and given an oppor-tunity to be men, not white men, brown men,yellow men or black men.

Thus, the liberation of Africa for which theAfrican States were struggling was not reverseracialism. Nor was it African imperialism. Therewas no question of these African States seekingor accepting any alterations to their own boun-daries at the expense of future free Africannations.

The African States could neither surrendernor compromise on the objective of liberation.They would prefer to achieve liberation withoutphysical violence, to negotiate rather than de-stroy. They did not advocate violence, but anend to violence against human dignity. If peace-ful progress to emancipation were possible orwere to become possible, they would urge theresistance movements to use peaceful methodsof struggle even at the cost of some compromiseon the timing of change. But while peacefulprogress, was blocked they would give all thesupport of which they were capable to thestruggle against the oppressors. The obstacles tochange were not the same in all countries, how-


ever, and it followed that the possibility of con-tinuing the struggle through peaceful meansvaried from one country to another. Nor did theAfrican signatories advocate violence; theywould urge those in resistance movements to usepeaceful methods of struggle.

The Manifesto further stated that in Angolaand Mozambique, and in so-called PortugueseGuinea, the basic problem was not racialism buta pretence that Portugal existed in Africa. Theonly thing that could convert a part of Africainto a constituent unit in a union that alsoincluded a European State would be the freelyexpressed will of the people of that part ofAfrica. There was no such popular will in thePortuguese colonies. On the contrary, the peo-ples of all three territories had taken up armsagainst the colonial power.

The peoples of Angola, Mozambique andPortuguese Guinea were demanding an accept-ance of the principles of independence on thebasis of majority rule, the Manifesto stated.Only when their demands for discussions on thisissue were continually ignored had they begunto fight. Even now, the Manifesto went on tostate, if Portugal should change her policy andaccept the principle of self-determination, theAfrican States would urge the liberation move-ments to desist from their armed struggle andto co-operate in the mechanics of a peacefultransfer of power.

In Rhodesia, as the Manifesto described theterritory, the situation was different, in so faras the metropolitan power had acknowledgedthe colonial status of the territory. Great Britain,however, had failed to take adequate measuresto reassert its authority against the minority thathad seized power with the declared intention ofmaintaining white domination, the Manifestostated. The question which remained in Rho-desia was whether Great Britain would reasserther authority in Rhodesia and then negotiatethe peaceful progress to majority rule beforeindependence.

In so far as Britain was willing to make thissecond commitment. Africa would co-operate inher attempts to reassert her authority, the Mani-festo continued. Until there was some firm evi-dence that Britain accepted the principles ofindependence on the basis of majority rule andwas prepared to take the necessary steps to make

it a reality, however, Africa had no choice butto support the struggle for the freedom of thepeoples of Rhodesia by whatever means wereopen.

The Manifesto went on to say that a settle-ment of the problem in Namibia with a mini-mum of violence was a United Nations respon-sibility. By every canon of international law andby every precedent, Namibia should now havebeen a sovereign, independent State with agovernment based on majority rule. Yet, sincethe time of the General Assembly's decision thatthe territory was the direct responsibility of theUnited Nations, no effective measures had beentaken to enforce practical means by which thepeople there would be enabled to exercise self-determination and to achieve independence.Namibia remained in the clutches of the mostruthless minority Government in Africa.

The world had an obligation to use itsstrength to enforce the decision which all coun-tries had co-operated in making. If it did so,there was hope that the change could be effectedwithout great violence. If it failed to do so, thensooner or later the people of Namibia wouldtake the law into their own hands. Africa wouldthen be unable to deny their call for help.

As for South Africa, the Manifesto stated, itwas an independent, sovereign State; on everylegal basis its internal affairs were a matter ex-clusively for the people of South Africa. Yet,the purpose of law was people and the AfricanStates asserted that the actions of the SouthAfrican Government were such that the rest ofthe world had a responsibility to take someaction in defence of humanity.

The apartheid policy adopted by the SouthAfrican Government, and supported to someextent by almost all its white citizens, was basedon a rejection of man's humanity. The SouthAfrican system of government was maintainedby a ruthless denial of the human rights of themajority of the population and thus, inevitably,of all.

These things were known and condemned inthe United Nations and elsewhere. But it ap-peared that for many countries internationallaw took precedence over humanity; thereforeno action followed the words. Yet even if inter-national law was held to exclude active assist-ance to the South African opponents of apart-


held, it did not demand that the comfort and malia, Southern Yemen,support of human and commercial intercourseshould be given to a Government which re-jected the manhood of most of humanity. SouthAfrica should be excluded from the UnitedNations agencies and even from the UnitedNations itself, the Manifesto stated. It shouldbe ostracized by the world community and iso-lated from world trade patterns. Africa couldnot acquiesce in the maintenance of the presentpolicies against people of African descent.

The signatories of the Manifesto reaffirmedtheir commitment to the principles of humanequality and human dignity and to the doctrinesof self-determination and non-racialism. Theydeclared they would work for the extension ofthose principles and doctrines within their ownnations and throughout the continent of Africa.


On 20 November 1969, the General Assemblyadopted a resolution whereby it : ( 1 ) welcomedthe Manifesto on Southern Africa and recom-mended it to the attention of all States and allpeoples; and (2) expressed once again the firmintention of the United Nations, acting in co-operation with the Organization of AfricanUnity, to intensify its efforts to find a solutionto the grave situation in southern Africa. In thepreambular paragraphs of the resolution, theAssembly stated, inter alia, its conviction of theneed for intensifying international efforts for theelimination of apartheid, racial discriminationand colonialism, and recalled its resolution of 11October 196548 on co-operation between theUnited Nations and OAU.

The text to this effect was adopted as reso-lution 2505(XXIV) by a roll-call vote of 113to 2, with 2 abstentions. (For text, see DOCU-MENTARY REFERENCES below. )

The resolution was adopted on the proposalof the following 48 members: Barbados, Bu-rundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, the Central Afri-can Republic, Chad, the Congo (Brazzaville),the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Da-homey, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon,Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana,India, the Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Le-sotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauri-tania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria,Pakistan, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, So-

Sudan, Swaziland,Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda,the United Arab Republic, the United Republicof Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen and Zambia.

An amendment was proposed by Malaysiaand subsequently withdrawn. It would haveadded to the end of the second operative para-graph (expressing the intention of the UnitedNations to find a solution to the grave situationin southern Africa) the phrase "in the spirit ofthe Manifesto on Southern Africa."

In the course of the Assembly discussions onthe resolution concerning the Manifesto onSouthern Africa, many Members endorsed thespirit of the Manifesto and expressed agreementwith its principles. Among them were Austria,Cameroon, Cyprus, Finland, Ghana, Greece,India, Malaysia, Mexico, Niger, Sweden,Uganda and Zambia.

Presenting the draft resolution, the represen-tatives of Cameroon, Kenya and Somalia em-phasized the importance of the Manifesto andits objectives and main features.

The representative of Kenya pointed out thatthe Manifesto carried three basic messages: first,that the independent African countries werestriving to develop non-racial societies; second,that the African countries would try to seekpeaceful solutions to the undemocratic practicesof apartheid, racial discrimination and colonial-ism; third, that should peaceful means proveimpossible for the oppressed peoples of southernAfrica, the African States reserved their rightto support other means of settling the problems.

The representative of Somalia noted, amongother things, that the Manifesto clearly stateda preference for bringing about change by peace-ful rather than violent means.

Many participants in the discussion regardedthe Manifesto as an important historic docu-ment and welcomed its objectives and goals.

Some representatives, while agreeing with theideals enunciated in the Manifesto, differedwith some of its terms.

The representative of the United States saidhis Government did not approve of the use offorce either to advance or to obstruct the causeof justice in southern Africa.

4 8See Y.U.N.,2011 (XX).

1965, p. 139, text of resolution


The representative of France agreed that onemight regret that the signatories of the Mani-festo had accepted a priori the final resort toviolence and the possible subsequent interferenceof OAU in the internal affairs of States. In hisview, peace should above all be the result of anuntiring effort along the lines of dialogue andunderstanding.

The United Kingdom spokesman, noting thatthe Manifesto mentioned violence, said that ac-ceptance of the resolution would not implyagreement with every view expressed in theManifesto.

Similar reservations to the terms of the Mani-festo were expressed by Australia, Botswana,Canada, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spainand Uruguay.

The Romanian representative said that oneof the most important steps that should be takento expedite the final destruction of colonialismwould be to support and help the national liber-ation movements.

Citing cases of former colonies that had at-tained independence, the representative of theUSSR said that in many instances peacefulprocesses had proved utterly inadequate. Hecharged that imperialist powers were stubbornlyprotecting the vestiges of colonialist régimes insouthern Africa. The USSR, he said, believedthat in order to eradicate those régimes specificand effective action was needed, not talks andpersuasion. Real assistance should be given tothe liberation movements.

Speaking in explanation of a negative voteon the resolution, the representative of SouthAfrica recorded his Government's position that

both the resolution and the Manifesto referred,inter alia, to South Africa's internal policies andthat no organization had the right to involveitself in matters that fell within South Africa'sdomestic jurisdiction. He added that there wasmuch in the Manifesto with which his Govern-ment agreed, but that there was also much thatwas based on misconceptions.

He rejected as unfounded and unsubstan-tiated the assertion contained in the resolutionthat there was a grave situation prevailing insouthern Africa. In the light of the Manifesto'smisconceptions concerning South Africa, as wellas the objectionable proposals and objectivesstipulated in it and in the resolution, in so faras they related to South Africa, his Governmenthad no alternative but to vote against the reso-lution.

Also explaining a negative vote on the resolu-tion, the representative of Portugal expressedserious reservations about some essential partsof the Manifesto, though his Government agreedentirely with the principles of equal humandignity set out in the earlier part of the docu-ment. He could not accept any insinuation tothe effect that Portugal's presence in its terri-tories in Africa could be in any way a disturb-ance to peace and security in that continent.Furthermore, his Government was unable toaccept any resolution that entrusted to OAUany tasks connected with the Portuguese terri-tories, since that organization had been soavowedly hostile to Portugal as to have set upa committee to encourage and aid violenceagainst such territories.


GENERAL ASSEMBLY——24TH SESSION

General Committee, meeting 184.Plenary Meetings 1780, 1791, 1814, 1815.

A/7657 and Add.1,2. Letter of 16 October 1969 fromAlgeria, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, CentralAfrican Republic, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville),Democratic Republic of Congo, Dahomey, Equa-torial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea,Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Mada-gascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco,Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone,Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda,United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tan-zania, Upper Volta, Zambia: request for inclusionin agenda of item entitled: "Co-operation between

the United Nations and the Organization of AfricanUnity: Manifesto on Southern Africa."

A/7700/Add.3. Fourth report of General Committee.A/7754. Letter of 7 November 1969 from Kenya

(transmitting Manifesto on Southern Africa, adopt-ed by Assembly of Heads of State and Governmentof OAU at its 6th ordinary session, Addis Ababa,Ethiopia, 6-9 September 1969).

A/L.575 and Corr.1 and Add.l. Barbados, Burundi,Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic,Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republicof Congo, Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia,Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guy-ana, India, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho,Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania,Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan,


Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, SouthernYemen, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Trinidad andTobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Republic,United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta. Yemen,Zambia: draft resolutiton.

A/L.577. Malaysia: amendment to 48-power draftresolution, A/L.575.

RESOLUTION 2505 (xxiv), as proposed by 48 powers,A/L.575, adopted by Assembly on 20 November1969, meeting 1815, by roll-call vote of 113 to 2,with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina,Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia,Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelo-russian SSR, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cen-tral African Republic, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China,Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Repub-lic of Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia,Dahomey, Denmark, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea,Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Ice-land, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel,Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya,Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya,Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania,Mauritius. Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal,Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway,Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Ro-mania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, SierraLeone, Singapore, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Spain,Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand. Togo,

Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic,United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania,United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela,Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Portugal, South Africa.Abstaining: Cuba, Malawi.

The General Assembly,Having received the Manifesto on Southern Africa,

adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Gov-ernment of the Organization of African Unity at itssixth ordinary session, held at Addis Ababa from 6 to9 September 1969,

Convinced of the need for intensifying internationalefforts for the elimination of apartheid, racial discrim-ination and colonialism in order that peace and secur-ity in southern Africa may be assured,

Recalling its resolution 2011 (XX) of 11 October1965 on co-operation between the United Nations andthe Organization of African Unity,

1. Welcomes the Manifesto on Southern Africa andrecommends it to the attention of all States and allpeoples;

2. Expresses once again the firm intention of theUnited Nations, acting in co-operation with the Or-ganization of African Unity, to intensify its efforts tofind a solution to the present grave situation in south-ern Africa.

OTHER DOCUMENTSA/9363. Letter of 28 July 1969 from Zambia (trans-

mitting Lusaka Manifesto to Security Council).

THE SITUATION IN NIGERIA

In the introduction (submitted on 15 September1969) to his annual report to the General As-sembly on the work of the Organization, for theperiod 16 June 1968-15 June 1969, the Secre-tary-General stated he was deeply distressed thatthe tragic conflict in Nigeria was continuing.

The activities of the United Nations with re-gard to the conflict had been of an exclusivelyhumanitarian nature, the Secretary-Generalstated, and it should be possible, notwithstand-ing all the political and other difficulties, for thehumanitarian activities of the United Nationsto continue and for the flow of supplies to thestricken areas to be maintained.

For the purpose of co-ordinating efforts andthus undertaking the most effective action, headded, a number of organizations, both govern-mental and private, had agreed in 1968 that allthe humanitarian aid to the victims of theNigerian conflict would be channelled throughthe International Committee of the Red Cross.

This arrangement included the relief activitiesof the United Nations, mainly those of theUnited Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). TheSecretary-General hoped that larger shipmentsof relief supplies would be made available, andthat persons in positions of responsibility andauthority would facilitate the movement of thesesupplies.

In April 1969, the Secretary-General had an-nounced the appointment of Said-Uddin Khanto succeed Nils-Gôran Gussing as his Repre-sentative to Nigeria on Humanitarian Activities.Mr. Gussing had arrived in Nigeria in August1968 as the Secretary-General's Representativeto assist in the relief and humanitarian activitiesfor the civilian victims of the hostilités; in Sep-tember 1968, following a request from the Fed-eral Government of Nigeria for the appointmentof an observer to visit the war-affected areas inNigeria, the Secretary-General had designatedMr. Gussing for this purpose as well. During

QUESTIONS RELATING TO ASIA AND THE FAR EAST 1531968 and 1969, the Representatives submittedinterim reports on their activities; the reportswere issued in the form of press releases.

As for the political side of the question, theSecretary-General stated in the introduction tohis annual report that the right course was toleave the political aspects of the Nigerian prob-lem to the Organization of African Unity(OAU) for solution. He hoped that the states-manlike and imaginative initiatives taken byOAU would be followed by wise and conciliatory

action by both parties so that a just and fairsettlement of the issues that had occasioned thattragic conflict might be achieved by peacefulmeans.

During the general debate in the openingphases of the General Assembly's twenty-fourthsession—at various meetings held between 19September and 8 October 1969—several repre-sentatives expressed concern about the situationand hoped that a peaceful solution could befound.


A/7601/Add.l. Introduction to annual report of Sec-retary-General on work of the Organization, Sep-tember 1969, para. 205. [See also verbatim recordsof following plenary meetings of 24th session ofGeneral Assembly: 1756, 1757, 1759, 1760, 1762-1765, 1767-1774, 1777, 1779-1784.]

CHAPTER

QUESTIONS RELATING TO ASIA AND THE FAR EAST

REPRESENTATION OF CHINA IN THE UNITED NATIONS


The question of the "Restoration of the law-ful rights of the People's Republic of China inthe United Nations" was placed on the agendaof the General Assembly in 1969 following a re-quest made on 8 September that year by Al-bania, Algeria, Cambodia, the Congo (Brazza-ville), Cuba, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Ro-mania, Southern Yemen, Syria, the United Re-public of Tanzania, Yemen and Zambia.

In an explanatory memorandum accompany-ing their request, these Members stated that therestoration of the lawful rights of the People'sRepublic of China in the United Nations andthe recognition of the representatives of thatGovernment as the sole legitimate representativesof China in the United Nations were absolutelyand urgently necessary in order to strengthenthe authority of the Organization. This implied,they said, the immediate expulsion of the repre-sentatives of the Chiang Kai-shek clique from

the seat that they unjustly occupied in theUnited Nations and in all its affiliated bodies.

The memorandum went on to say that thereality of the existence of the People's Republicof China could not be changed to suit the mythof a so-called Republic of China, whose unlaw-ful authorities remained installed in the islandonly because of the permanent presence of thearmed forces of the United States. Persistentrefusal, for entirely political considerations, to re-store to the Government of the People's Republicof China its rightful seat, they added, was agrave denial of justice and inconsistent withan essential principle of the United Nations—namely, universality.

The People's Republic of China, the memo-randum said, had always followed a policyaimed at settling by peaceful means all disputesthat might exist or arise between States; China'sscrupulous observance of the Geneva agree-ments of 1954 and 1962 concerning Indo-Chinawas the best possible example of that policy.

1965, 2053 a (xx) of 15 december 1965, 2249(s-v)...

Documents