sign in sign up
<<
Home , Rhodesia

United Nations FOURTH COMMITTEE, 1841st GENERAL MEE'tiNG ASSEMBLY Monday, 3 November 1969, at 11.15 a.m. TWENTY-FOURTH SESSION Official Records NEW YORK

CONTENTS of Malaysia and the United of Tanzania to transmit their heartfelt condolences to their families and to Page the people and Governments of their countries. Tribute to the memory of Dato' Mohamed Ismail bin Mohamed Yusof, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to 2. Mr. GOH (Malaysia) expressed his appreciation for the the , and Mr. Akili B. C. Danieli, Permanent condolences expressed upon the death of Dato' Mohamed Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania to the Ismail bin Mohamed Yusof; he would transmit them to United Nations ...... 159 Dato' Ismail's family and to the Government and people of Agenda item 102: Malaysia. Question of Southern (continued) Consideration of draft resolution A/C.4/L.936 and Add.1 3. Mr. KAMBA (United Republic of Tanzania) thanked and 2 (concluded) ...... 159 the delegations which had expressed their condolences upon the death of Mr. Akili B. C. Danieli and assured the Organization of work ...... 165 Committee that he would transmit them to Mr. Danieli's family and to the Government and people of Tanzania. Chairman: Mr. Theodore IDZUMBUIR (Democratic Republic of the Congo). AGENDA ITEM 102

Question of (continued)* Tribute to the memory of Data' Mohamed Ismail bin {A/7623/ Add.1, A/C.4/l.936 and Add.1 and 2) Mohamed Yusof, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations, and Mr. AktYi B. C. Daniell: CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT RESOLUTION Permanent Representative of the United Republic of A/C.4/L.936 AND ADD.l AND 2 (concluded) Tanzania to the United Nations 4. Mr. SADRY () recalled that at the 685th meeting of On the proposal of the Chairman, the members of the the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Committee observed a minute's silence in tribute to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of memory of Data' Mohamed Ismail bin Mohamed Yusof and to Colonial Countries and Peoples held at Mr. Akili B. C. Danieli. , his delegation had reiterated its views on the question of Southern Rhodesia and had expressed its deep 1. The CHAIRMAN, Mr. KISAKA (), on behalf of concern over the intolerable situation obtaining in that the African group, Mr. GELBER (), Mr. AKATANI Territory. (Japan), Mr. LILANDA (), also speaking on behalf of Ethiopia, India and Maldives, Mr. LEE WILLIAMS 5. It was frustrating that the illegal minority regime was (), also speaking on behalf of , still in power despite four years of effort on the part of the Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Nether­ majority of the United Nations. Since usurping power, the lands, , Spain and the of illegal regime had continued to strengthen its position and America, Mr. ENE (Romania), also speaking on behalf of had intensified its repressive measures against the African the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Bulgaria, majority in Sou~hern Rhodesia. Moreover, by adopting a Czechoslovakia, Cuba, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, the so-called constitution, it was trying to perpetuate its Union of Soviet Socialist and the Ukrainian domination over the African people and had already begun Soviet Socialist Republic, Mr. TAIHITU (Indonesia), also to enact laws to establish the system in Rhodesia. speaking on behalf of the Philippines, Mr. RUSIT A (), Mr. ROCHESTER (), also speaking on 6. It had been reported that on 30 October 1969 the behalf of the Latin American group, Mr. SADRY (Iran), Rhodesian Parliament had adopted in principle a bill also speaking on behalf of Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanis­ dividing the Territory along racial lines. Over 4 million tan, Mr. RAOUF (Iraq), on behalf of the Arab group, Africans would be given the same amount of land as Mr. MELLBIN (Denmark), also speaking on behalf of 250,000 European settlers. The regime had already started Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, Mr. SHAMMAS forcibly removing African tribes from their ancestral lands (Kuwait), Mr. PSONCAK (Yugoslavia), Mr. KACOU (Ivory and would doubtless have no mercy on those opposing such Coast), Mr. MATHIAS (), Mr. MOLEFHE (Bots­ forcible removals once the bill had become law. wana), Miss BARONI (Venezuela), Mr. DLAMINI (Swazi­ land) and Mr. GROBBELAAR (South ) paid tribute 7. The representatives of the United Kingdom had often to the memory of Dato' Mohamed Ismail bin Mohamed reaffirmed their Government's responsibility towards the Yusof and Mr. Akili B. C. Danieli, and asked the delegations *Resumed from the 1839th meeting.

159 A/C.4/SR.l841 160 General Asst:mbly- Twenty-fourth Session- Fourth Committee ------people of the Territory. In that connexion, he quoted the the action of the United Nations with respect to Southern statement of the United Kingdom representative on 17 Rhodesia in no way detracted from the Charter obligations October {1833rd meeting) and pointed out that, by of the United Kingdom as administering Power. It hoped subscribing to Article 73 of the United Nttions Charter, the iliat the administering Power would fulfil iliose obligations administering Power had recognized th:1t the interests of swiftly and effectively. the inhabitants of the Territory wen paramount and accepted as a sacred trust the obligatio 1 to ensure, inter 14. Mr. KACOU (Ivory Coast) said that in 1963 his alia, "their just treatment, and their protection against country, together with the other independent States of abuses". The fact that the people of Zi nbabwe had been Africa, had made a solemn promise to spare no effort to unjustly treated and abused by the ille~al regime had not eliminate all forms of colonialism from Africa. His country been denied by the administering Power. agreed iliat it was necessary to put a rapid end to a situation from which its oppressed brothers were suffering, 8. The United Kingdom, which was rr orally, politically so that they could help to build a free, united and peaceful and legally responsible for the fate of over 4 million Africa. His delegation had not taken part in the general Africans in Rhodesia, had refused to ca-ry out its obliga­ debate on ilie question of , Southern Rhodesia and tions under the Charter, despite the appeals of the General the Territories under Portuguese domination, for it con· Assembly. The illegal regime, encourage( by the policy of sidered that everything had already been said and that it the United Kingdom, had continued to intensify its would perhaps be better to take thought on new ways of repressive measures against the indigenous population and solving those problems. would doubtless continue to do so while it remained in power. 15. In spite of numerous United Nations resolutions, those Territories had made very little progress towards self-deter­ 9. The state of affairs in Southern Rhoc esia had strength­ mination and independence. His delegation had particularly ened the conviction of those who belie' ed iliat the only appreciated-and fully endorsed-the view put forward by solution to the problem was to intensify the armed struggle the representative of Mali in the General Assembly (1775th by the liberation movements. His delegation, while support­ plenary meeting) and in the Fourth Committee (1829th ing the legitimate struggle of the people of , still meeting) that it was time for the United Nations to seek a remained convinced that the administerin~ Power could and new method for finding a rapid solution to colonial should take all effective measures to restore legality in the problems. Nearly ten years had gone by since the adoption Territory and to transfer all powers to a gc vernment elected of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to by the majority. Colonial Peoples and Territories, but unfortunately the United Nations had not yet succeeded in implementing iliat 10. Hostility to the Smith regime was not directed at the resolution fully, because of the persistent opposition of the Whites, but against the system of minor ty rule based on colonial Powers. apartheid and discrimination. That view h:1d been expressed by many petitioners and was reflected in the Manifesto on 16. The , which represented a new, I adopted at Lusaka. realistic strategy in the fight against colonialism and apartheid, was an unequivocal affirmation of ilie principles 11. At the 1833rd meeting of the Comnittee the United of equality and human dignity to which all the States of the Kingdom representative had said that his country's policy world, including Portugal and , should sub­ was to maintain the pressure of sanctions and international scribe. isolation, in order to create a new situation in Southern Rhodesia. He wondered whether that ne" situation would 17. His delegation hoped that the Fourth Committee and restore the fundamental rights and freedoms of the major­ the other United Nations bodies which were concerned ity in accordance with the principles let forth in the with those questions would use the Manifesto as a basis for Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial their work. Countries and Peoples·. If so, how long wollld the people of 18. He still considered that the United Kingdom, in its Zimbabwe have to suffer in order to att lin freedom and capacity as administering Power, bore the primary responsi­ independence, and how long should the international bility for the situation in Southern Rhodesia. He quoted community continue to pin its hope:: on ineffective the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Ivory Coast, who economic sanctions. had said in the General Assembly (I 769ili plenary meeting) that the United Kingdom's pacifism contrasted with the 12. At the 685th session of the Speciai Committee, his vigorous course which it had adopted on other occasions. delegation had pointed out that while the people of Zimbabwe were continuing to suffer from oppression and 19. The United Kingdom was progressively abandoning its exploitation, the countries which were not applying sanc­ prerogatives in Southern Rhodesia, as was demonstrated by tions against the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia were the withdrawal of ilie United Kingdom Governor on the gaining tremendous benefits at the expense of the people of day following the referendum. The Government of the that Territory and of the nations which had complied with United Kingdom, which was endangering world peace by the Security Council's decisions, particularly Southern failing to shoulder its responsibilities, should restore legality Rhodesia's neighbours and the developing countries. in Southern Rhodesia and should implement General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 as 13. The present situation should not be allowed to soon as possible. continue indefinitely. His delegation shan d the view that 1 The text of the Manifesto was subsequently circulated as 20. With regard to Namibia, the Security Council, in document A/7754. accordance with the provisions of the Charter, should adopt 1841st meeting- 3 November 1969 161 appropriate measures for a United Nations presence in that Moreover, the maintenance of those channels of communi­ Territory, with a view to preparing it for independence. It cation would be of no significance if no country had was inconceivable that the racist regime in should trading relations with Southern Rhodesia. continue to defy the United Nations by refusing to relinquish the Territory. 29. His Government had repeatedly requested that certain decisions should be explained more precisely by means of 21. In connexion with the Territories under Portuguese answers to questions which it considered extremely impor­ administration, he again quoted the Minister for Foreign tant, a course which would help to clarify the situation. Affairs of the Ivory Coast, who had said in the General Nevertheless, Portugal had not so far received any reply; Assembly that the legal fiction which Portugal invoked in therefore, no one was entitled to accuse it of responsibility order to avoid applying the principle of self-determination for the failure of those decisions. in the Territories under its domination had now been superseded and that the events which had shaken Africa 30. Mrs. JIMENEZ (Cuba) said that her delegation was after the Second World War were deeply rooted in the same unable to support draft resolution A/C.4/L.936 because it nationalism which had shattered the great empires of did not consider that United Nations intervention in the Europe and Asia and which would liberate Africa from question of Southern Rhodesia would enable the people of colonial domination for ever. Zimbabwe to gain their freedom. Recent history demon­ strated that peoples who were subjected to colonial 22. His delegation once again affirmed the inalienable oppression could not achieve their liberation through mere right of the peoples of Namibia, Southern Rhodesia and the recommendations and condemnations which lacked manda­ Territories under Portuguese administration to self-determi­ tory force. Despite the many resolutions adopted by the nation and recognized the legitimacy of their struggle for Security Council and the General Assembly, the illegal liberation and independence. It endorsed the spirit of the regime of the fascist minority in Southern Rhodesia draft resolution which had been submitted (A/C.4/L.936) remained immovable; the mandatory sanctions had not but, for reasons which had been explained by the Minister been effective and foreign monopolies and financial inter­ for Foreign Affairs of the Ivory Coast in the General ests were contributing to the economic prosperity of the Assembly it would be obliged to abstain in the vote. Territory.

23. Mr. BALLAH (), referring to 31. While, on the one hand, encouraging statements were operative paragraph 13 of draft resolution A/C.4/L.936, being made and resolutions and appeals were being issued said that sanctions could not replace the use of force by the against the Salisbury regime, on the other hand, the regime administering Power, but they should be enforced to see if was being given increasing military and economic assistance they would have the desired effect. He therefore suggested which would enable to remain in power to the sponsors that the word "enforced" should be indefinitely. inserted after the word "supervised" in that paragraph. 32. The Government of Cuba had no illusions concerning 24. He would not press his amendment if the sponsors did the part played by the United Nations in the question of not agree with it. Southern Rhodesia. However, it considered it not only a moral and revolutionary duty, but a vital necessity, in view 25. Mr. CHADHA (India) said that, although he had no of the repressive policy of imperialism and the internation­ objection, the amendment proposed by the representative alization of its punitive wars, for peoples to assist to the of Trinidad and Tobago was not entirely necessary, since utmost their African brothers who were fighting imperial­ the words "effectively supervised" implied enforcement of ism, colonialism and racism. The people of Zimbabwe had the sanctions. no choice but to surrender to their enemies, or to resist and fight. However, the Viet-Namese people had demonstrated 26. Mr. BENSID (Algeria) proposed that the sponsors of to all the peoples of the world that it was possible not only the draft resolution should study the amendment submitted to resist and fight until death, but also to resist until victory by the representative of Trinidad and Tobago and give their was won. reply in due course. 33. Mr. MOLEFHE () said that his Government 27. Mr. MATHIAS (Portugal) said that his delegation had supported the self-determination of peoples on the basis of already explained its position with regard to Southern , in accordance with the wishes of the Rhodesia. In draft resolution A/C.4/L.936 there were indigenous population and the relevant United Nations specific references to Portugal in operative paragraphs 5, 13 resolutions. and 14. Portugal considered those references unacceptable and rejected them. 34. Certain proposals and decisions were made repeatedly in every debate, but nevertheless progress was slow. He 28. The Government of Portugal was continuing its policy wondered what relation there was between United Nations of non-intervention with regard to the constitutional resolutions and the ability of the Organization to imple­ situation and internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia. For ment them. The failure to comply with its decisions that reason, Portugal was keeping open the means of jeopardized joint efforts and, in the case of Southern communication not only with the Territory, which was Rhodesia, strengthened the illegal Smith regime. land-locked, but with countries which were hostile to it. If Portugal were to close down those communications uni­ 35. The sanctions against the Territory, although incom­ laterally, other countries would suffer the consequences. plete, should be applied diligently and sincerely. Stress 162 General Ass~mbly- Twenty-fourth Session- Fourth Committee must be laid on their more positive and practicable aspects. 41. Mr. LEE WILLIAMS (United Kingdom) said that the The sacrifice which Botswana was making in order to draft resolution which the Committee was considering was comply with those sanctions justified its reservations very much the same as that of the previous year, in that it concerning draft resolution A/C.4/L.936. He had doubts reiterated the call for the use of force and the demand for concerning the advisability of extending sanctions to South the extension of sanctions to South Africa and Portugal and Africa and continuing to call upon the United Kingdom to once again sought to condemn the United Kingdom use force when it had already categoric ally stated that it Government for the present situation. Where the draft would not do so. There were ways of Jbliging Powers to resolution went further than that of the previous year was confess their weaknesses, but they did not help in finding in pointing towards force and violence, seeking to impose solutions. For all those reasons, his delegation would unrealistic demands and resorting to the facile language of abstain in the vote on the draft resolution. condemnation. It might well be asked when heed would be given to the warnings voiced within the Organization about 36. Miss BARONI (Venezuela) said that in the general the risks for the future of the United Nations itself if debate on Southern Rhodesia her delegation had already resolutions continued to be adopted which had no hope of drawn attention to the need for the S !curity Council to being carried out. supplement the decisions which had beerr adopted, bearing in mind that it was essential to adoft measures which 42. Mr. Michael Stewart, the Secretary of State for would ensure compliance with those decisions by the States Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, had said in the which had refused to accept them. General Assembly (I 759th plenary meeting), that to pass resolutions demanding the use of force or a total economic confrontation with other States in southern Africa would 37. The General Assembly should dra\t the attention of be an error which it would be foolish to commit, the Security Council to the urgent nee !ssity of widening particularly when there existed a practical and effective the sanctions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter way of proceeding: namely, to see that Security Council and should call upon it to adopt such measures as were resolution 253 (1968) was rigorously observed both in necessary to ensure compliance with it; mandatory deci­ letter and in spirit. No member of the Committee could be sions. in any doubt about where the United Kingdom stood with regard to the use of force in Southern Rhodesia and on the 38. With regard to draft resolution A/C.4/L.936, her question of economic confrontation with South Africa. delegation was convinced that the pee ple of Zimbabwe derived no encouragement from the fact that the United 43. He thought that it would have been far better for all Nations continued to condemn the United Kingdom's delegations to demonstrate their unanimous condemnation failure to act and its refusal to adopt efD~ctive measures, or of the illegal regime by seeking to maintain its isolation and that the use of force was specifically proposed among those by making sanctions more effective. That would have been measures-in operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution, the practicable course of action. He regretted that the for example-when it was a well-known fLct that the United wording of the draft resolution made it impossible for his Kingdom was not prepared to resort to force. Her delega­ delegation to vote in support of it. tion supported operative paragraph 6 on the understanding that it referred to the emigration of nationals from a State 44. Mr. KATAPODIS (Greece) said that the draft resolu­ as a result of "activities ... promoting, <.ssisting or encour­ tion seemed to be acceptable on the whole, but he wished aging emigration", as stated in Security 2ouncil resolution to make a few comments. Firstly, he did not share the 253 (1968") of 29 , operative paragraph 8. Her general pessimism concerning the effectiveness of economic delegation would vote in favour of the draft resolution. sanctions. Although they might not be sufficient to attain the ultimate objective, they were at least an important 39. Mr. DLAMINI (Swaziland) said hat his delegation element of pressure, both material and moral, and that was would support the draft resolution, althJugh with reserva­ why Greece had scrupulously complied with all the tions. There was no disagreement betw~en his delegation Security Council resolutions. Secondly, he found the and the United Kingdom on the fa:t that Southern proposal that those sanctions should be extended to other Rhodesia was a United Kingdom responsi~ility. What was in Member States surprising, since that was the exclusive question was the sincerity with which the United Kingdom prerogative of the Security Council. It lay with the Security would fulfil its responsibilities; from 194 7 to 1968 the Council not only to decide on the measures to be adopted United Kingdom had only entered intc bilateral negotia­ but to choose the proper time to put them into effect. With tions with white regimes. Moreover, that country had not those reservations, his delegation would vote in favour of made use of its prerogatives to revoke the 1961 Constitu­ the draft resolution, although it would be glad to see the tion of Southern Rhodesia .md thus ha i given Ian Smith deletion of operative paragraph 14, as also of operative time to strengthen his position and prep ue for the future. paragraphs 3 and 7, which defined the responsibilities of the administering Power and referred to the use of force. 40. There was no sense ~n shedding blood; the only possible solution was a peaceful one, in accordance with the 45. Mr. BARBOT POU (Uruguay), speaking in explanation Charter. His Government had therefore 1:omplied with the of vote, said that his delegation supported draft resolution United Nations resolutions and had su;pended its trade A/C.4/L.936 because it recognized the right of the people with Southern Rhodesia. For those reasons, his delegation of Zimbabwe to self-determination and the legitimacy of would abstain in the vote on operative paragraph 7 of the their struggle for independence. The United Kingdom was draft resolution. It could in no way accept operative responsible, as administering Power, for transferring power paragraph 14 (b). to the African majority through free elections based on 1841st meeting- 3 November 1969 163 universal . His delegation considered that the use of effective steps should be taken to solve the problem of force was not a desirable method of remedying the Southern Rhodesia. If a separate vote could be taken on situation and that measures of that kind fell within the operative paragraphs 7 and 14 of draft resolution A/C.4/ competence of the Security Council. L.936, his delegation would abstain. In the Security Council Colombia had taken a well-defined stand concern­ 46. Mr. HENNINGSEN (Norway) said that his Govern­ ing the use of force; its representative in that body had ment fully supported the policy of the United Nations with stated on 24 that the reason why the Colombian regard to Southern Rhodesia, directed towards the restora­ delegation had abstained in the vote on the resolution on tion of legitimate authority in the Territory and the Southern Rhodesia had been that it considered that the use establishment of majority rule based on democratic prin­ of force was a measure of such extreme gravity that it ciples. Those were the objectives of the sanctions imposed should be resorted to only when all possible ways of solving by the Security Council; Norway had complied fully with the problem had been exhausted. With regard to operative the mandatory decisions of the Council and it was essential paragraph 14, his delegation did not wish to be associated that those decisions should be complied with effectively with any measure relating to a question which was being and speedily by all Member States. considered by the Security Council.

47. His delegation's abstention on draft resolution A/C.4/ 51. The CHAIRMAN said that the delegations of Burundi, L.936 in no way represented a deviation from that general the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Libya and policy. His delegation had been forced to recognize that Niger (see A/C.4/L.936/ Add.2) had joined the sponsors of there were differences of opinion with regard to the most the draft resolution and that the sponsors had accepted the suitable and effective means of attaining the common oral amendment submitted by the delegation of Trinidad objectives of the Organization. Specifically, it could not and Tobago. share the belief that a recommendation by the General Assembly to the Government of the United Kingdom to use 52. Mr. RIF AI (Secretary of the Committee) read out force to remedy the situation in Southern Rhodesia would paragraph 13 of draft resolution A/C.4/L.936 and Add.l contribute to the solution which was desired by the and 2, as orally revised. overwhelming majority of the international community and which was the professed policy of the United Kingdom At the request of the Sudanese representative, the vote Government itself. Moreover, his delegation was doubtful was taken by roll-call. about the constitutional legality and the political wisdom of prescribing a course of action for the Security Council The Netherlands, having been drawn by lot by the by formulating substantive recommendations on sanctions. Chairman, was called upon to vote first.

48. In operative paragraph 10, the draft resolution intro­ In favour: Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, duced a new element, on which he wished to make his Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Government's position clear. Norway's policy had been to Singapore, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Thai­ support the calls for assistance to national liberation land, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, movements, on the understanding that the United Nations Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet could only recommend to its Members a line of conduct Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Republic which was in conformity with the principles of interna­ of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, tional law. That continued to be the policy of the Zambia, Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Barbados, Bul­ Norwegian Government, but the General Assembly should garia, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Repub­ not attempt to impose on the specialized agencies and other lic, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, international institutions the task of providing material Ceylon, Chad, Chile, , Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), assistance to those movements. His delegation doubted Congo (Democratic Republic of), Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, whether it was proper to implicate the specialized agencies Dahomey, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial in activities which were clearly political and which might Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, , Hun­ even divert their attention and their efforts from the main gary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, , , Jordan, functions for which they had been created. He emphasized Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, his delegation's support for the work of the Office of the Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and for all the activities which the international agencies might under­ Against: Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, South take to help the oppressed people of Southern Rhodesia. Africa, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Australia, Belgium. 49. His delegation thought that a near-unanimous vote in the General Assembly would have a greater influence on the Abstaining: Norway, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Botswana, situation in Southern Rhodesia than a demonstration of the Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, failure of the United Nations to reach agreement. It firmly Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho. believed that agreement could have been reached through consultations among all groups of opinion and it regretted The draft resolution (A/C.4/L.936 and Add.l and 2}, as that the sponsors of the draft resolution had discounted orally amended, was adopted by 79 votes to 8, with 17 that possibility in advance. abstentions.

50. Mr. MENDOZA (Colombia) said that the affirmative 53. Mr. CASTALDO (Italy) pointed out that draft resolu­ vote of his delegation was in line with its belief that tion A/C.4/L.936 was based on General Assembly resolu- 164 General Assembly- Twenty-fourth Session- Fourth Committee tion 2383 (XXIII) of 7 November 1968, i 1 respect of which 60. Had the draft resolution been put to the vote the Italian delegation had duly entered i1.s reservations. He paragraph by paragraph, the Irish delegation would have considered that many paragraphs of the draft resolution abstained on operative paragraph 3 and the first part of were contrary to the <;barter and bore no relation to operative paragraph 4. It did not consider that paragraph 3, reality. Instead of voting against the draft resolution, the in referring to the "refusal" of the United Kingdom Italian delegation had merely abstained, because it shared Government to take effective measures to bring down the the view that majority rule should he established in Salisbury regime, correctly portrayed the attitude of the Southern Rhodesia. Furthermore, Italy f 1lly supported the United Kingdom. With regard to paragraph 4, the Irish measures adopted by the Security Council to overthrow the delegation took the view that the Charter placed the illegal Smith regime. responsibility for determining the existence of acts of aggression on the Security Council, and not on the General 54. Mr. GROBBELAAR {South Africa; repeated that his Assembly. Government still held the view that the situation in Rhodesia was a matter to be settled between that country 61. The Irish delegation would have abstained in the vote and the United Kingdom. The South Afri1:an delegation had on operative paragraph 10, because it considered that in already explained the presence of that context the phrase "material assistance" clearly forces in Rhodesia-their position remained unchanged. He implied the supply of arms. Moreover, the appeal in that denied the allegation that South Africa posed a threat to paragraph could indirectly encourage the people of South­ neighbouring countries and said that that unfounded em Rhodesia to engage in an armed struggle which would accusation had been dealt with in detail in his delegation's be hopeless, since an armed clash with the military statement at the previous session.2 Cl)nsequently draft might-actual and potential-of the Salisbury regime could resolution A/C.4/L.936 was quite un< cceptable to the lead only to the destruction of those seeking the liberation South African delegation, which had therefore voted of their country. against it. 62. Lastly, the Irish delegation would have voted in favour 55. Mr. DE QUEIROZ DUARTE (Brazl) considered that of the second part of operative paragraph 4 and in favour of the draft resolution reflected the conc,~rn of the United operative paragraph 8, on the understanding that the Nations about the situation in Southerr Rhodesia and its United Kingdom would implement them as far as circum­ desire that urgent steps should be taken to overthrow the stances permitted. illegal Smith regime.

56. The Brazilian delegation had duly s11pported Security 63. Mr. AKATANI (Japan) said that he had abstained in Council resolution 253 (1968) and its Government had the vote on draft resolution A/C.4/L.936 because he did passed laws to give effect to it. not approve of operative paragraph 7 or of operative paragraph 14 (b). His Government reaffirmed its full 57. Although the Brazilian delegation 1hared the wish to support for the basic objective of the draft resolution, eliminate racism and colonialism, cert2in aspects of the namely, to put an end to the Smith regime as soon as draft resolution had prevented his delegation from voting in possible, and to that end it was prepared to co-operate with its favour. For example, the General As1:embly should not the Governments of other nations. prejudge action by the Security Council, which, in accord­ ance with resolution 253 (1968), had already set up a 64. Mr. MORENO PINO (Mexico) said that, as on other committee to study the effects of the 1anctions. Further­ occasions, the Mexican delegation had voted in favour of more, to attribute responsibility to a particular country the draft resolution on Southern Rhodesia as a whole. would not help to achieve a speedy settlnment. Neither did There were some ideas in the draft resolution whose the Brazilian representative consider the use of force an adoption might well help to put an end to the unjust appropriate way to solve the problem. Far those reasons his situation prevailing in Southern Rhodesia. delegation had abstained in the vote. 65. Approval of the draft resolution in general, however, 58. Mr. KIRWAN (Ireland) said that hi1 delegation was in did not mean that his delegation was in agreement with full sympathy with the ultimate objeclives of the draft each and every one of its paragraphs. Several of the resolution. The Government of Ireland supported the paragraphs reiterated concepts which had appeared in aspirations of the people of Southern Rh<,desia for indepen­ General Assembly resolutions 2262 (XXII) and dence based on majority rule. However, t 1e Irish delegation 2383 (XXIII), to which his delegation had at the time had had to abstain because of the denand in operative expressed objections with regard to their substance, their paragraph 7 that the United Kingdom shJUld employ force drafting or their implied scope. Those objections were still to solve the problem of Southern Rhodesia. valid.

59. In an Organization dedicated to the peaceful settle­ 66. Mr. POLDERMAN (Netherlands) said that his Govern­ ment of disputes, it was difficult to call br the use of force ment considered the Smith regime illegal and condemned while the possibility of a peaceful soluti<1n of the Southern the policy of apartheid. It also considered that the solution Rhodesian problem remained. Moreover, ]tis delegation held of the Southern Rhodesian problem lay in the strict that, in accordance with the Charter, it w 1s for the Security application of the measures adopted by the Security Council and not the General Assembly to decide whether Council. His Government had put that idea into practice action involving the use of armed force should be taken. and had co-operated with the Committee set up under 2 See Official Records of the General Ass1mbly, Twenty-third Security Council resolution 253 (1968) to ensure the full Session, Fourth Committee, 1778th meeting, paa. 32. implementation of such decisions. 1841st meeting- 3 November 1969 165 67. The Netherlands delegation had voted against the draft national liberation movements of Zimbabwe, and operative resolution because it included various ideas that were alien paragraphs 12 and 14, since it was wrong to encroach upon to the basic principles that his Government upheld. For the jurisdiction of the Security Council, whose mandate instance, the General Assembly ought not to recommend included the adoption of effective measures to settle the measures on matters that were being considered by the question of Southern Rhodesia. Security Council, unless the Council asked it to do so. Moreover, the use of force might bring about an escalation 73. Mr. ARIAS SALGADO (Spain) said that his delegation of the problem and aggravate the , sufferings of the supported the principles and objectives of the draft inhabitants of the Territory. Finally, his delegation thought resolution in that the responsibility for putting an end to that the United Kingdom was making a genuine effort to the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia and transferring find a solution to the problem. power to the people of Zimbabwe, on the basis of majority rule, lay with the United Kingdom. Like General Assembly 68. Mr. SACKSTEDER (United States of America) said resolution 2383 (XXIII), the draft resolution included that his delegation still thought that the Ian Smith regime various provisions, in particular operative paragraphs 5, 7 was illegal, that the Government should be elected by all and 14, which contained statements and aimed at produc­ the inhabitants of the Territory and that the right to ing results that the Spanish delegation could not accept, self-determination should be exercised by all, without since they entailed complex legal questions which it should distinction of race. His delegation regretted that it had been be left to the Security Council to settle. The Spanish unable to support draft resolution A/C.4/L.936 since, delegation had therefore been obliged to abstain in the vote although it was in general agreement with the contents, it on the draft resolution. considered that the use of force was an unacceptable way of settling the matter. The United Kingdom delegation had 74. Mr. ESMURDOC (Dominican Republic) said that his stated that it was not prepared to use force in Southern delegation had voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.4/ Rhodesia and the United States respected its reasons. L.936 because it thought it essential to use effective means to solve the Southern Rhodesian problem in order to put an 69. His delegation did not agree that the sanctions should end to the Ian Smith regime. The people of Zimbabwe were be extended to Portugal and South Africa, for such a course suffering oppression and that situation constituted a threat would only complicate still further an inherently complex to international peace and security, as had been recognized situation. Nor was it in agreement with some other by the Security Council in resolutions 232 (1966) and paragraphs, but it would not repeat arguments already 253 (1968). His country deplored the violation of funda­ expounded. mental human rights by the minority regime in Southern Rhodesia. 70. He regretted that the sponsors of the draft resolution had not consulted the other members of the Committee 75. Mr. ASIROGLU (Turkey) said that, although his when preparing the text, since his delegation approved of delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution, that many of the concepts and ideas of the majority of the did not mean that it agreed with all the provisions. It had members of the Committee, and greater support could have serious reservations concerning operative paragraphs 3, 4, 5, been secured for the draft resolution with a view to its 6, 7, 13 and 14. Despite those reservations, it had effective implementation. supported the draft resolution because his Government repudiated the present regime in Southern Rhodesia, which 71. Mr. FERNANDEZ (Argentina) said that his delegation it considered illegal. had voted in favour of the draft resolution although it had grave doubts about the effectiveness of the text, which in part reproduced a previous General Assembly resolution. It Organization of work might perhaps be appropriate to reflect on the advisability of repeating resolutions which had been adopted earlier and 76. The CHAIRMAN said that, if the Committee con­ which had not been implemented. In the opinion of the tinued to work at its present pace, he was afraid i1e would Argentine delegation, the question of Southern Rltodesia be obliged to convene night meetings as from the following should be settled in conformity with Security Council week. He urged delegations that were preparing draft resolution 253 (1968). resolutions on the questions of Namibia and of Territories under Portuguese administration to speed up their work so 72. His delegation had reservations concerning operative that the procyedings of the Committee would not be paragraph 10 of the draft resolution, in which the special­ delayed. ized agencies and other international organizations were asked to extend moral and material assistance to the The meeting rose at 1.30 p.m.