United Nations FOURTH COMMITTEE, 1442nd GENERAL MEETING ASSEMBLY Tuesday, 8 October 1963, at 10.40 a.m. EIGHTEENTH SESSION

Official Records NEW YORK

CONTENTS one vote", the had now decided to turn Page over to the settlers control of the Federal army and air force. The settlers for their part had chosen a path Agenda item 75: from which there could be no turning back. Every day Question of Southern : report of the that passed was a day in their favour; they had already Special Committee on the Situation with re­ seized most of the land by force, and they monopolized gard to the Implementation of the Declaration the country's resources and means of production; they on the Granting of Independence to Colonial had consolidated their hold by erecting prisons and de­ Countries and Peoples (continued) tention camps for those who werefightingforthe right Hearing of petitioners . . . • . • • • . . . . . • . 53 of self-determination. Realizing that those injustices General debate (continued). • . . . . • • • • . . 56 would eventually goad the African masses into action, Hearing of petitioners (continued) . . • . . . . 59 the settlers were now asking for an army and an air force with which to wage a ruthless campaign to sup­ Chairman: Mr. ACHKAR Marof (Guinea). press the African nationalist movement. 4. Furthermore, the settlers were now also working out the most subtle plans to put into effect a policy of AGENDA ITEM 75 thinly disguised under the name "community Question of : report of the Special development". In most developing countries, that term Committee on the Situation with regard to the Imple­ applied to programmes aimed at promoting develop­ mentation of the Declaration on the Granting of Inde­ ment through self-help schemes. In Southern Rhodesia, pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (A/5446/ however, the term meant something quite different: Rev.l, chap. Ill; A/5448 and Add.l-5; A/C.4/603; according to the Minister of Internal Affairs, Local A/C .4/606) (continued) Government and African Education, who was responsi­ ble for the implementation of the plan, it constituted a political philosophy based on the existence of different HEARING OF PETITIONERS cultures and recognizing that the social integration of At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Robert MugR.be, people differing in race and culture did not conduce representative of the African National Union to harmony. In its pamphlet entitled "Community (ZANU), took a place at the Committee table. Development", the Rhodesia Front advocated apart­ heid, stating that the process in question was one 1. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) whereby each community-whether European, African, thanked the Committee for having authorized him to Euro-African or Asian-defined its needs, made its submit his petition on behalf of his party and of the plans, carried out those plans with its own resources, people of Zimbabwe. The latter fully appreciated the and secured outside assistance where necessary. That Committee's interest in the question of Southern theory accordingly provided for the establishment of Rhodesia and the position which the Committee had t:acial communities separated by rigid social, eco­ adopted in that connexion, and hoped that United Nations nomic and political barriers with the sole object of action would facilitate its accession to independence. preventing the Africans from t-ncroaching upon the 2. The last six months had been an extremely difficult social, political and economic rights and privileges period in Southern Rhodesia, because of the stringent which were now enjoyed by the settler minority. Three measures taken by the settlers to limit political activi­ hundred and fifty Africans were already being trained ty. Realizing that the situation was bound to grow worse to carry out those "separate development" schemes. and conscious of the feeling of frustration among the The Government of Southern Rhodesia had affirmed oppressed masses, the nationalist leaders had on four that it was determined to implement its policy, despite different occasions sent delegations to the United King­ all opposition. dom Government in the hope of persuading it to take 5. No further evidence was needed to prove that the positive steps to solve the crisis. Yet, despite those settlers, if left to themselves, would definitely turn the efforts and the resolutions of the United Nations, the country into a second South Africa; it was impossible United Kingdom refused to take the necessary action, to make them listen to reason, for they had lost all arguing that it was powerless to intervene in the inter­ sense of judgement on vital political issues and loudly nal affairs of Southern Rhodesia, which was a self­ proclaimed the principle of equal rights for all civi­ governing territory. lized men, while reserving to themselves the right to 3. Instead of discharging its obligations towards the decide who was civilized and who was not. It was too Rhodesian people by applying General Assembly reso­ much to expect that they, having so long monopolized lution 174 7 (XVI), which requested it, as the adminis­ privileges and political power, would suddenly bestow tering Power, to guarantee the Mricans the exercise of equal rights and privileges upon the African inhabitants their rights and to convene a fully representative con­ of the country, who outnumbered them sixteen to one. stitutional conference that would ensure the rights of 6. The request made to the Government of Southern the majority of the people on the basis of "one man, Rhodesia by Mr. Butler, the United Kingdom Minister 53 A/C.4/SR.1442 54 General Assembly - Eighteenth Session - Fourth Committee responsible for Central African Affairs, that it should the United Kingdom Government; and to withhold all introduce substantial changes in the 1961 Constitution financial assistance from the settler Government. Mr. and the Land Apportionment Act before the question Butler had failed to give Z 1\NU any assurances on those of independence was discussed, had been scornfully three points, confining himself to the statement that the rejected by Mr. Field, who had described it as un­ army and air force would never be used to suppress the reasonable. It seemed clear that Mr. Field, and not African nationalist movement. Mr. Butler, was now master of the situation: at the 9. In the past, the Africans had never had reason to first congress of the Rhodesia Front, in September rejoice at the actions of the United Kingdom; if in 1963, 1963, the same uncompromising attitude had been at a time when the Field Government was demanding displayed and the members of the party had urged independence, the United Kingdom turned over to it con­ their leader to continue in his determination to gain trol of the army and air force, that could be interpreted independence unconditionally and without any changes in the 1961 Constitution. It should be noted that the as nothing but a manoeuvre to betray the African people Rhodesia Front was daily consolidating its position and and to favour the Europeans' cause. For the Africans, the United Kingdom's decision to turn over command of that it now represented the opinion of the white settlers the army and air force to the Southern Rhodesia to a much greater extent than did the Rhodesia National settlers masked the intention to grant, to the latter, Party of Sir . He cited in that con­ independence as well. A minority settlers' group which nexion the reply returned by the Minister of Mines to had established its tyrannical rule and was carrying out Sir Albert Robinson, former Federal High Commis­ a campaign of repression against the nationalist move­ sioner in London, who had stated that the only way in ments, by harassing their leaders, arresting them, and which Southern Rhodesia could obtain independence imposing severe prison or even death sentences on would be through the conclusion of a negotiated settle­ them for minor offences, could not have any genuine ment which would have the support of the vast majority of the peoples of all races in Southern Rhodesia. In the claim to an army. view of the Minister of Mines, the settlers were faced 10. It was time to put an end to the fascist rule in the with a choice between survival and death. country, and that could be done only by establishing a government of the people. The United Kingdom had 7. The United Kingdom must compel those political nothing to fear regarding the future of the settlers. The incorrigibles, without delay and by using every means policy of the Zimbabwe African National Union was not at its command, to yield. Unfortunately for the to throw out a part of the community, but to recognize Africans, however, the United Kingdom was temporiz­ that all the inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia were part ing; if it had taken the action requested of it, Southern of the people of Zimbabwe, since Southern Rhodesia Rhodesia, like and , would was an African country, on the continent of Africa, and be well on the way to self-determination. The Africans its political, social and economic institutions must found themselves struggling against the intransigence therefore reflect the will of the Africans, who con­ not only of the settlers but also of an administering stituted more than 96 per cent of the population. ZANU Power which was shirking its responsibility. was prepared to recognize the rights of the minorities, 8. After the United Kingdom had vetoed the draft reso­ but privileges based on colour and on such idle concepts lution on Southern Rhodesia in the Security Council as the philosophy of equal rights for all "civilized" men (1069th meeting), ZANU, disturbed at the administer­ would be replaced by a more universal philosophy of ing Power's clear intention to turn over command of equal rights for all human beings, regardless of colour, the army and the air force to the settler r~gime, had race, or creed. instructed him to protest to Mr. Butler against that decision and to urge him anew to seek a positive solu­ 11. He urged the Committee to seek a more effective tion to the existing impasse. He had been received by method of bringing pressure on the United Kingdom with Mr. Butler on 24 September. He had pointed out to him a view to the latter acting without any further delay. that the dissolution of the Federation of Rhodesia and 12. Mr. MUFTI (Syria) proposed that the text of the Nyasaland would leave Southern Rhodesia under the petitioner's statement should be circulated in full and authority of a settler minority which had not the that Mr. Mugabe should remain at the Committee's slightest intention of democratizing the Constitution so disposal throughout the entire examination of the ques­ as to grant to the immense African majority its legiti­ tion of Southern Rhodesia. mate political rights. He had reminded Mr. Butler of the tortures and privations suffered by his people for It was decided that Mr. Mugabe'sstatementwouldbe circulated in the usual manner. seventy-two years and of the categorical rejection by the African people of the present Constitution, as evi­ 13. The CHAIRMAN said with regard to the second dence in the African people's referendum of 1961 and proposal of the Syrian representative, that the Secre­ the successful boycott of the electoral enrolment cam­ tariat would get in touch with Mr. Mugabe in order to paign and the elections of December 1961. Finally, he ascertain how long he intended to remain in New York. had drawn Mr. Butler's attention to the statement by Mr. Field that he was determined to keep the army and 14. Mr. EL-SHAFEI (United Arab Republic) asked the petitioner to describe the objectives and results of air force "at top possible strength" because of possible the four missions which his party had sent to the United "external threats". In view of those circumstances, Kingdom Government. Z ANU had urged the United Kingdom Government to act firmly, promptly and unequivocally to prevent blood­ 15. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) shed, and to that end to impose on Southern Rhodesia replied that Z ANU had sent an initial delegation to Mr. a new constitution, which would be in conformity with Butler when he had visited Central Africa in 1963 to the aspirations of the majority of the inhabitants, before make an on-the-spot study of the problems created by the dissolution of the Federation, so that the army and the dissolution of the Federation; on that occasion air force could be placed under the control of a people's ZANU had given him a memorandum in which it had government; to arrange that the army and the air force stated that the question of Southern Rhodesia should be should in the meantime remain under the control of considered as a matter of priority. Mr. Butler had indi- 1442nd meeting- 8 October 1963 55 cated that the United Kingdom Government would exa­ 23. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) mine that memorandum. No other reply had thus far replied that the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland been given. had been the outcome of efforts made by the settler minorities residing in Central Africa, and by the 16. ZANU had sent a second delegation to the United United Kingdom Government, to create an area ruled by Kingdom Government when it had become clear that the settlers and to impede political progress, particu­ the Field Government intended to demand independ­ larly in Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland, which had ence; the delegation had asked the United Kingdom previously been protectorates. When the Federation Government not to accede to Mr. Field's request, and to had been formed in 1953, the United Kingdom had said take measures with a view to settling the question of that Southern Rhodesia was a self-governing territory. Southern Rhodesia. The United Kingdom Government However, the African population had always rejected had given a similar reply. that assertion, since they had no power and were domi­ 17. Following the Summit Conference of Independent nated by a European minority. Northern Rhodesia and African States held at Addis Ababa in May 1963, Mr. Nyasaland, for their part, had not been self-governing Field had once more addressed a request to the United territories. The situation of those territories could not, Kingdom Government for independence. ZANU had then therefore, be compared to that of the states which had sent Mr. Takawira, its Vice-President, to London in constituted the of America. In the case of order to make its views known to the United Kingdom the United States, although it had been necessary in Government. Thereupon, Mr. Butler had informed certain instances to resort to force in order to ensure ZANU that he intended to convene a constitutional unity, the majority of the inhabitants had been in favour conference in which representatives of all the political of the Union. In Southern Rhodesia, it was the Euro­ parties would be invited to participate; but he had peans and the United Kingdom Government which had, subsequently denied that such was his intention, and from the outset, imposed on the population a solution Z A.NU did not know what the United Kingdom Govern­ designed to retard political progress. ment proposed to do with regard to such a conference. 24. Mr. BUDU-ACQUAH (Ghana) asked thepetitioner 18. Lastly, he himself had sent a memorandum to whether, in his opinion, the rule of law, freedom and Mr. Butler and had received the reply, already known, justice obtained in Southern Rhodesia. that the army and the air force would not be used to 25. Mr. MUG ABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) suppress the African nationalist movement. Mr. Butler observed that the United Kingdom delegation had just had added that the United Kingdom Government would submitted to the Committee a document (A/C.4/606) in give the matter its consideration. That Government's which the Government of Southern Rhodesia claimed, reply therefore remained the same: no definitive deci­ inter alia, that peace and order had always reigned in sion had ever been reached, nor had any steps been the Territory, that the Zimbabwe African National taken. Consequently, ZANU concluded that its inter­ Union was free to conduct its activities and that the vention had produced no result. fact that the appeal of Mr. Joshua Nkomo, leader of 19. In reply to a question from Mr. EL-SHAFEI the banned Zimbabwe African Peoples Union, had been (United Arab Republic), Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe upheld testified to the rule of law. He wished to make African National Union) said that on 31 December it clear that, in reality, political liberty was practically 1963, according to the terms of the agreement con­ non-existent. ZANU had protested to Mr. Field against cluded at the Central African Conference held at the restrictions imposed on its meetings. The majority each of the three territories of the of Southern Rhodesia's inhabitants lived in reserves Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland would regain which nationalist leaders could enter only by authoriza­ control of its own armed forces. On that date, there­ tion of the Minister of Justice and Law and Order. In fore, the Government of Southern Rhodesia would be point of fact, each nationalist leader could travel only free to use those forces, if it had not already done so. within a radius of three miles from the reserve in That was a matter of great concern to ZANU, for the which his home was located. Since 1960, only Members army and the air force had always been called upon of Parliament, whose views differed from those ofthe to help the Government in its campaign to suppress nationalists, could hold meeting in the reserves. It was the freedom of the people. therefore virtually impossible to organize meetings for the some 1,600,000 persons who lived in those areas. In 20. Mr. BUDU-ACQUAH (Ghana) asked in what addttion, about 850,000 persons lived on farms or close capacity Mr. Butler had taken part in the Victoria Falls to the mines, which were owned by Europeans. In order Conference. to have access to those zones, nationalist leaders had 21. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) to obtain the owners' permission-which they secured replied that, as representative of the United Kingdom only rarely, since the owners feared the effects of Government, Mr. Butler had had the task of ascer­ political and trade union meetings.Itcouldnotbe said, taining the various points of view and of considering therefore, that the Southern Rhodesian Government the propsoals made by representatives of the three recognized the rule of law. territories of the Federation. He was empowered, in 26. After recalling the circumstances of Mr. Nkomo's that capacity, to take a decision and he alone was re­ arrest, he said that the High Court had indeed recog­ sponsible for the final decision. nized the illegality of that arrest. However, that deci­ sion, which constituted an exception, could not be used 22. Mr. BUDU-ACQUAH (Ghana) recalled that the in order to prove that law prevailed in Southern United Kingdom Government regarded Southern Rhodesia. The Law and Order (Maintenance) Act of 1961 Rhodesia as a self-governing territory, and asked the had strengthened still further the powers of the police, petitioner whether he considered that, at the time of the who could in all circumstances arrest a person on mere Federation's establishment, each of the three states suspicion and without a warrant. constituting it had been an independent State, like the various states which had combined in a federation to 27. Mr. BRUCE (Togo) asked the petitioner whether form the United States of America. the talks which the nationalists had had with the United 56 General Assembly - Eighteenth Session - Fourth Committee

Kingdom representatives had revealed to them the financial assistance. He had also stated that, contrary United Kingdom Government's position with respect to to Mr. Butler's assurances, the army had been used Southern Rhodesia. Did the United Kingdom regard against the nationalists. He would like the petitioner Southern Rhodesia as a self-governing colony, or was to explain the process by which a new constitution could it a Non-Self-Governing Territory that could obtain be promulgated; would it be necessary to convene a its independence in accordance with the wishes of the constitutional conference, or to have recourse to the majority? prerogatives of the United Kingdom in that regard? He would also like to know the nature of the financial 28. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) assistance given to Southern Rhodesia by the United recalled that the nationalist leaders had during recent Kingdom Government, and whether that assistance was years had the opportunity of ascertaining the United given to the Government, to the settlers, or to Southern Kingdom Government's attitude in the matter. It ap­ Rhodesia as a whole. peared that the United Kingdom Government continued to consider that Southern Rhodesia was a self-govern­ 35. Mr. MUG ABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) ing territory in whose internal affairs it had no right replied that there was no longer any prospect of a to intervene. Mr. Butler had also indicated quite clearly constitutional conference, since the Field Govern­ that the United Kingdom Government could take no ment's representatives and the European settlers action in Southern Rhodesia, since it had concluded an would certainly not participate in it. The United King­ agreement with the Government of that country. There­ dom should therefore take steps on behalf of the fore, despite the appeals of the African nationalists, the majority and impose its decision. United Kingdom Government refused to intervene. 36. With regard to the Iraqi representative's second However, since it was impossible to persuade the question, Southern Rhodesia had received assistance white settlers-who had neither goodwill nor any sense from the United Kingdom Government in the past, but of humanity-to change the present system, it was it had been granted through the Government and had essential that the United Nations and the other groups frequently been used for purposes other than those in a position to do so should continue to exert pressure intended. For example, when the United Kingdom upon the United Kingdom Government. Government had granted f. 35 0, 000 to Southern Rhodesia 29. Mr. BRUCE (Togo) regardedthepetioner's state­ for an African welfare programme, with a view to im­ ment as extremely revealing: the situation in Southern proving the housing of the indigenous inhabitants, the Rhodesia was becoming more and more explosive. bulk of those funds had been used to build houses for African policemen. There was therefore every reason 30. Mr. SUPIT (Indonesia) asked the petitioner to fear that such assistance might in future be used for whether he thought that the United Kingdom could purposes contrary to the interests of the inhabitants. achieve a satisfactory solution by using a policy of persuasion and whether, in particular, it wouldbythat 37. The CHAIRMAN said that there were four repre­ method be possible to secure an expansionofthe right sentatives on his list of speakers for the present meet­ to vote. ing. He therefore proposed, if there were no objections, to suspend the hearing of the petitioner in order to call 31. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) upon one of those speakers, and to hear the petitiuner replied that a policy of persuasion could produce re­ again if enough time remained. sults only if th( persons towards whom it was directed were willing to be persuaded. That, however, did not It was so decided. apply to the settlers who held power in Southern 38. The CHAIRMAN thanked Mr. Mugabeforhis state­ Rhodesia. They had stated three months earlier that ment and invited him to remain available to the Com­ they demanded independence without any restriction or mittee. condition, and the continuation of the 1961 Constitution. Their position was therefore clear, and there was no Mr. representative of the Zimbabwe hope that it might change. At the present stage only African National Union (ZANU), withdrew. force could be effective. The United Kingdom Govern­ GENERAL DEBATE (continued) ment was probably not prepared to send troops to settle the Rhodesian question but it should be able to find a 39. Mr. COOMARASWAMY (Ceylon) said that his dele­ solution by force if necessary. gation was compelled to state that it was speaking with 32. Mr. SUPIT (Indonesia) asked what measures the a twofold sense of frustration: first, although the General Assembly had adopted three resolutions on Africans intended to adopt, and said that his country Southern Rhodesia, the situation of the Africans of that was prepared to assist them in any action they might country was worse than it had been at the time of the undertake. vote on the first resolntkn; secondly, the United King­ 33. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) dom persisted in its attitude and even had the distinc­ replied that the Africans had long engaged in an un­ tion of exercising its veto in the Security Council on ceasing and ruthless struggle against the colonialists. the question of Southern Rhodesia. In the preceding year, in the popular demonstrations following the banning of ZANU, they had clashed with 40. His delegation proposed to consider all aspects the powerful army of the Federal Government rein­ of the question in the hope of convincing the United forced by troops from South Africa. They were never­ Kingdom of the soundness of the contention that it theless determined to continue the struggle. The was not entitled to deny the competence of the United measures adopted in the past had proved ineffective Nations in that matter or to decline to intervene in and the new policy must be one of confrontation of the Southern Rhodesia. He recallea that in October of the United Kingdom and the European settlers of Rhodesia. preceding year the sponsors of the draft text which had been adopted as resolution 1760 (XVII) had 34. Mr. KHALAF (Iraq) recalled that Mr. Mugabe had hastened to secure passage of that text before 1 Novem­ already indicated the desires of the African population: ber, the date on which the United Kingdom and the the drafting of a new constitution, postponement of the Government of Sir Edgar Whitehead were planning to transfer of the army and the air force, and cessation of promulgate the Constitution of 1961. The request made 1442nd meeting- 8 October 1963 57 by the General Assembly to the United Kingdom in its said in Commission II that, while independence should resolution 1760 (XVII) had not been heeded by that not be ruled out as the ultimate destiny of some of those country's Government. The Constitution had been Territories, to include it as the universal goal of colo­ promulgated and the elections held, with disastrous nial policy would be unrealistic and prejudicial to peace consequences for the people of Southern Rhodesia. Dur­ and security .Y Those were strange words indeed in the ing the current session the sense of urgency and des­ light of more recent pious assertions made after it pondency was even greater than in the preceding year. was realized that was in full retreat every­ 41. He congratulated the Ghanaian delegation on the where; and that statement might well explain the United memorandum concerning Southern Rhodesia (S/5403 Kingdom's present intransigent attitude on Southern and Corr.1) which it had presented to the Security Rhodesia. Council on 2 August 1963. That memorandum was a 44. On the question of competence, it was also rele­ monumental work which could only have sprung from vant to quote the observations of the International Court great devotion to the cause of freedom for Africans. of Justice in the advisory opinion entitled "Reparation His delegation also endorsed the noble aims set forth for injuries suffered in the service of the United in the resolution on decolonization, adopted by the Nations" ,ll "· .. the Organization was intended to exer­ Summit Conference of Independent African States held cise and enjoy, and is in fact exercising and enjoying, at Addis Ababa in May 1963. functions and rights which can only be explained on the basis of the possession of a large measure of inter­ 42. His delegation had carefully considered the national personality and the capacity to operate upon an statements made by the United Kingdom delegation international plane. It ••• could not carry out the inten­ in the Fourth Committee on 25 October 1962 (1360th tions of its founders if it was devoid of international meeting), in the Security Council on 9, 10 and 12 personality. It must be acknowledged that its Members September 1963 (1064th, 1066th and 1068th meetings), ••• have clothed it with the competence required to and again in the Fourth Committee on 1 October 1963 enable those functions to be effectively discharged." (1434th meeting). Those statements overlooked the very purposes for which Chapter XI had been inserted 45. Therefore, provisions of the Charter had to be, in the Charter at the San Francisco Conference, and and had been, interpreted and applied liberally on that the manner in which the provisions of that Chapter had assumption, and the principle had been used for ex­ been subsequently applied. The United Kingdom's panding the authority of the United Nations. The powers original intention at the time of the Conference had of United Nations organs must be interpreted liberally, been that the Declaration on Non-Self-Governing and limitations on those powers must be interpreted Territories should be included as an annex to the Char­ strictly. References on that subject could be found in ter. France had argued that the provisions relating to the Documents of the United Nations Conference on trusteeship should not go beyond the Dumbarton Oaks International Organization, volume 13, pp. 709-710. Proposals and that there should be no interference in 46. On the subject of Southern Rhodesia, the first the domestic affairs of an administering Power. It had question that arose was whether the United Kingdom further argued that any principles of the nature of was the Member that had responsibilities for the those put forward by the United Kingdom should be set administration of Southern Rhodesia within the meaning out in the preamble or in the chapter on general princi­ of Article 73. His delegation would consider that ques­ ples, and should not become a substantive chapter. In tion together with the second question: namely, what so doing its motive was to ensure that the particular was meant by "self-government" and "a full measure statement on colonial policy should not be so placed of self-government" in Aritcle 73? as to override the general statement on domestic jurisdiction set out in Article 2, paragraph 7. Although 4 7. The United Kingdom used the convenient ex­ the working group had recommended the inclusion of pedient of stating that it was not the Power which had that statement in the chapter on principles, the ultimate responsibilities for the administration of Southern draft had contained it as a separate Chapter XI. By Rhodesia. But that question could not be decided by the that action the drafters of the Charter had by implica­ mere ipse dixit of an interested party. It should be tion overruled the French objection, notwithstanding examined in the light of the facts and of the General a French reservation made in Committee II/4,1/ That Assembly resolutions. fact would accordingly justify the consistent rejection 48. At the seventeenth session (1152nd plenary meet­ by the General Assembly of all objections to the com­ ing) the United Kingdom Minister of State for Foreign petence of the United Nations based on the domestic Affairs had stated that the Government of Southern jurisdiction clause. Rhodesia had exercised full internal autonomy for forty 43. The entire world, and particularly the colonial years. The Government of Ghana, in its memorandum and former colonial peoples, were greatly indebted to submitted to the Security Council (S/5403 and Corr .1 ), Australia, which at the San Francisco Conference had by quoting the debates of the United Kingdom Parlia­ been mainly instrumental in producing the Declaration ment, the report of the Advisory Commission on the in Article 73. Although at San Francisco the United Review of the Constitution of Rhodesia and Nyasaland,il Kingdom, in deference to the wishes of Australia, had statements by· Mr. Butler, the United Kingdom Minister allowed the draft declaration to be presented in its responsible for Central African Affairs, and other ultimate form, a close examination of the proceedings authoritative sources, had shown the hollowness of of the five- Power consultative group and of the commit­ the position adopted by the United Kingdom delegation tees concerned would show that the United Kingdom at the seventeenth session; and the United Kingdom delegation had misgivings about the emancipation of the representative, in his statement made on 10 Septem­ colonial peoples. After the adoption of the draft text of ber 1963 to the Security Council (1066th meeting), had the Declaration on Non-Self-Governing Territories by failed to meet the Ghanaian arguments. He had sought Committee II/4, the United Kingdom delegation had l:J Ibid., vol. 8, p. 159. l/ See Documents of the United Nations Conference on International lf l.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 179. Organization, vol. 10, p. 622. .if Cmnd. 1148. London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1960. 58 General Assembly - Eighteenth Session - Fourth Committee to circumvent those arguments by expressing surprise coloured people of Southern Rhodesia was amply that Ghana was attempting to interpret the constitu­ demonstrated by the Southern Rhodesian franchise, in­ tional law of the United Kingdom. The Ghanaian mem­ cluding the discriminatory expedient of the two elec­ orandum, however, was based on factual statements and toral rolls. As pointed out by the Special Committee in authoritative pronouncements made in the United King­ paragraph 51 of its report (A/5446/Rev,l, chap. Ill), it dom itself rather than interpretations. In any event, the had been the members of the white settler minority who General Assembly was competent to interpret the had voted and won the elections. Constitution of one of its Members in order to decide 52. The Government of Ghana mentioned in its whether provisions of the Charter were being violated. memorandum (S/5403 and Corr,l) a very useful com­ 49, As indicated in appendix Ill of the Ghanaian parison between Malta and Southern Rhodesia in order memorandum, the white settlers of Southern Rhodesia to show that the United Kingdom Parliament had had in 1923 received a Constitution which had con­ revoked the Constitution of Malta, which had been siderably restricted the legislative powers of the almost identical with the Southern Rhodesian Consti­ Southern Rhodesian Parliament. Appendix II of that tution, and could therefore revoke the latter Consti­ memorandum showed that the Federal Constitution of tution also. For that reason, as well as for those given 1953, applicable to Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and previously, his delegation was satisfied that Southern Southern Rhodesia, had also reaffirmed the colonial Rhodesia had not yet achieved a full measure of self­ status of Southern Rhodesia and the fact that sove­ government within the meaning of Article 73. reignty over that Territory continued to be vested in 53. The third question concerning the situation in the British Crown. The Federation itself had been Southern Rhodesia was: who was to determine whether subordinate in many respects to the authority of the Southern Rhodesia fell within the ambit of Article 73? British Crown, as could be seen from appendix IV of the The Charter did not answer that question. The General memorandum. Similarly, a study of the Order in Assembly, by resolution 66 (I), had initially accepted Council of December 1961 promulgating the present determination by the Administering Member con­ Constitution of Southern Rhodesia would show that cerned, and the United Kingdom had decided at the time sovereignty in external matters and certain internal not to enumerate Southern Rhodesia among the Terri­ matters had not been handed over in toto to the tories under its administration. However, the United people of Southern Rhodesia. Kingdom could not now rely on its unilateral act to 50. Article 73 of the Charter contemplated a "full" estop the Assembly from considering the question, measure of self-government. Mere internal self­ Subsequently, in resolution 222 (III) the General As­ government, even if it was complete-and that •vas by sembly had considered it essential, having regard to no means true of Southern Rhodesia-could not satisfy the provisions of Chapter XI, that the United Nations the requirements of Article 73. As no distinction was should be informed of any change in the constitutional drawn between internal self-government and external position and status of any Territory enumerated in self-government, Article 73 would continue to apply resolution 66 (I) if the responsible Government con­ until both aspects of self-government were attained. cerned thought it unnecessary, as a result of such a Moreover, at the San Francisco Conference it had change, to transmit information ·n respect of that been maintained that "self-government" included "in­ Territory. The United Kingdom had implicitly recog­ dependence". Therefore "self-government" could not nized that right of the Assembly, and had sent a reply~ mean something less than independence, and hence stating that in 1947 certain Territories, such as Burma, could not mean mere internal self-government. In the Ceylon and Malta, had become fully responsible for annex to General Assembly resolution 648 (VII) and in their internal affairs, so that the United Kingdom the annex to resolution 742 (VIII), international status could not transmit information regarding their educa­ and internal self-government were both listed as tional, social and economic conditions. The reply of factors indicative of the attainment of independence or the French Government~ had overlooked the essential of other separate systems of self-government. There­ difference between a "certain" measure and a "full" fore one of those factors without the other was insuffi­ measure of self-government. In resolution 334 (IV) the cient. In its resolution 1541 (XV) the General Assembly General Assembly had considered it within its re­ had assumed that a full measure of self-government sponsibility to express its opinion on the principles was attained by emergence as a sovereign independent which had guided or which might in future guide the State, free association with an independent State, or Members concerned in enumerating Territories for integration with an independent State. Southern the purposes of Article 73 e. Later, in resolution 648 Rhodesia could not claim any of those attributes of self­ (VII), the General Assembly had implicitly decided that government, and therefore the United Kingdom could both the Assembly and the Administering Member con­ not claim that it was not the administering Power for cerned had competence to decide the question whether that Territory. a Territory had obtained a full measure of self-govern­ 51. Turning to the second question that arose in con­ ment or not. But in 1953, in resolution 742 (VIII), the nexion with the situation in Southern Rhodesia, namely, Assembly had asserted for the first time its sole com­ what was meant by "a full measure of self-government" petence to decide on the continuation or cessation of in Article 73, he said that the three conditions for tne information required by Chapter XI. That positionhad non-applicability of Article 73 to any Territory were been reiterated in resolutions 849 (IX) and 945 (X). that it should have attained self-government, that the 54, Those resolutions had dealt with the obligations self-government should be in full measure, and that the under Article 73 e, and in particular with the cessation self-government should have been attained by the peo­ of the transmission of information. However, the ples of the Territory and not merely by a section of the principle of the sole competence of the Assembly was peoples. In Southern Rhodesia, over 90 per cent of the in no way modified whether it was a question of the people had not attained self-government, Self-govern­ commencement of the transmission of Information or a ment, if any, was vested in the whitE; settlers, led by question of the other obligations set forth in Article 73. persons some of whom had not even been born in the Territory. The total absence of self-government for the ~See A/915, 1442nd meeting- 8 October 1963 59

Three observations were called for in that connexion. in the affirmative. !2..1 There was good reason to won­ First, even if a Territory had achieved a degree of der whether, as far as the United Kingdom was con­ internal self-government which made it physically cerned, the surrender of its powers to the Government impossible for the Administering Member totransmit of Mr. was not a flagrant violation of information under Article 73 e, that country could not that obligation. cease to be the Administering Member as far as the other obligations referred to in Article 73 were con­ 58. Eleven years already had passed since the cerned, one of which was to accord the Territory such General Assembly had adopted its resolution 637 A treatment under Article 73 b that it could achieve full (VII), in which it had affirmed that the right of peoples self-government. Secondly, the words "subject to such and nations to self-determination was a prerequisite to limitation as security and constitutional considerations the full enjoyment of all fundamental human rights. In may require" occurred only in Article 7 3 e, and consti­ that same resolution the Assembly had recommended tutional considerations could not limit the obligation Member States to uphold the principle of self-deter­ to promote progress towards full self-government mination of all peoples and nations, to recognize and under Article 73 b. Thirdly, a Territory could be promote the realization of the right of self-determina­ regarded as non-self-governing for the purposes of tion and to take practical steps to that end. It was Article 73 even if it was not considered a colony by the questionable whether the United Kingdom could honest­ Constitution of the metropolitan State. ly cover itself by the fact that in 1946 it had not desig­ nated Southern Rhodesia as one of the Non-Self­ 55. In the exercise of its sole competence to arrive Governing Territories which it administered, whereas at decisions under Article 73, the General Assembly the realities of the situation prevailing in Southern had adopted resolutions 1747 (XVI), 1755 (XVII) and Rhodesia were obvious. 1760 (XVII), in which it had affirmed or reaffirmed 59. Before concluding, he wished to congratulate the that Southern Rhodesia was a Non-Self-Governing Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Territory. By so doing, it had acted under Article 10, Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of which gave it the power to decide whether or not the Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples on its provisions of Article 73 were applicable to a Territory excellent report and on the very reasonable resolution and, if so, to recommend that the Power administering it had adopted, which was set out in paragraph 282 of the Territory should carry out its obligations under its report. Thanks were also due to the petitioner who Article 73. By virtue of Article 10 the Assembly could had spoken on the situation in Southern Rhodesia before discuss any matters "within the scope" of the Charter; the Fourth Committee. since Article 73 was within the scope of the Charter, it imposed on Member States obligations which they 60. With reference to that situation, the United King­ must "fulfil in good faith" (Art. 2, para. 2). Article 2, dom representative had stated in the Fourth Committee paragraph 7, itself, which was a general provision, on 1 October 1963 (1434th meeting) that his country had could not override the particular provisions of Arti­ informed the Government of Southern Rhodesia that a cle 73. revision of the Territory's Constitution should precede the granting of independence. He had also recalled the 56. The Assembly had in fact decided the matter, and statement made by Mr. Butler on 16 July 1963. It had the United Kingdom was bound to respect that decision been said that that statement had cast a ray of hope; instead of adducing lack of authority on the part of the however, the question was what form the revision would General Assembly simply because the decision taken take. Only a constitution which reversed the present did not suit the white settler Government and was not set-up would give the peoples of Southern Rhodesia in line with the business interests of certain company their due, However, the danger was that by leaving managements. powerful armed forces in the hands of Mr. Winston Field, as was proposed, the United Kingdom would 57. The last question to which he wished to reply was allow Mr. Field to sever all connexions with the United whether the attitude of the United Kingdom was con­ Kingdom itself, If that were to happen, and the present sistent with the principles and obligations set forth state of frustration were to persist, the Ceylonese in Article 73 and other Articles of the Charter as well delegation was convinced that a situation of the as with the resolutions of the General Assembly. His Algerian type would develop in Southern Rhodesia. That delegation had already shown that the attitude of the was where the threat to international peace and securi­ United Kingdom was totally inconsistent with the ty lay. If the United Kingdom Government did not heed obligations set forth in Article 73. However, that Arti­ the draft resolution adopted by the Fourth Committee cle also affirmed two major principles, namely, the on 7 October 1963 (1441st meeting), it would bear full principle that the interests of the inhabitants of Non­ responsibility for the catastrophes which were bound Self-Governing Territories were paramount, and the to result from such an attitude. "sacred trust" principle. Consequently, there was rea­ son to wonder whther the attitude of the United Kingdom HEARING OF PETITIONERS (continued) was consistent with the idea of sacred trust in colonial At the invitation ofthe Chairman, Mr. Robert Mugabe, policy which had been expounded to the British Parlia­ representative of the Zimbabwe African National Union ment by the great Edmund Burke himself. At San (ZANU), fook a place at the Committee table. Franscisco, after the adoption by Committee 11/4 of a draft text on Non-Self-Governing Territories, the 61. Mr. MONGO NO (Nigeria) asked the petitioner Netherlands representative had stressed three aspects what, in his opinion, were the minimum basic changes of the situation of dependent peoples, namely: the fact which must be made in the situation in. Southern that their land, and particularly their arable land, was Rhodesia in order tosatisfyZANU.Henotedthat in the not protected; forced labour; and the humiliation caused statement made at the beginning of the meeting, Mr. by the assertion of racial superiority. When asked Mugabe had spoken of recognition of minority rights, whether the text adopted implied an obligation on the part of the administering State to provide for those if See Documents of the United Nations Conference on International matters, the United States representative had replied Organization, vol. 10, p. 563. 60 General Assembly - Eighteenth Session - Fourth Committee and he asked whether Mr. Mug abe could enlarge on that that nationalists like himself were kept outofthe gov­ point. ernment of their country. 62. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) 68. Mr. ANOMA (Ivory Coast) congratulated Mr. replied that his party was fighting for the right of Mug abe on the clarity with which he had supplemented self-determination and would not be satisfied with half the information available to the Committee on Southern measures; what Z ANU wanted, in fact, was for majority Rhodesia, In view of the differences of opinion between government to be established in Southern Rhodesia the white minority, which opposed the formation of a as in the independent countries of Africa. In view of truly democratic government, and the African majori­ the present status of Southern Rhodesia, Z ANU desired ty, which was determined to liberate its country, it was the adoption of measures which would enable the people obvious that the situation in the Territory was indeed of the Territory to determine their own future, without explosive. restrictions and in accordance with their aspirations. 69. He went on to speak of the historic past of the z ANU could not accept either the "blocking third" solu­ United Kingdom and of the help it had received during tion, which would enable the Africans to oppose any the Second World War, not only from its allies but from legislative measures or any change in the Constitution the countries of the Commonwealth. He urged that the which threatened to be to their disadvantage, or an situation in which the inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia equal share of seats in the Parliament. It wished to be were placed should be brought to an end, for they were in a position to govern, and not simply to oppose rightly exasperated by the stubborn stand of the white measures proposed by other sections ofthepopulation. settler minority. There was only one possible solution: 63. Furthermore, ZANU considered that recognition to agree to discussion, to put the General Assembly should be given to the rights of the individual as such resolutions into effect, to revise the 1961 Constitution rather than to the rights of different sections of the and to allow justice to prevail in the Territory. population considered as racial groups. There was no 70. Mr. KUNDYA (Tanganyika) assured Mr. Mugabe question of depriving the settlers of the right to stay that the people and Government of Tanganyika stood in Southern Rhodesia, but their rights should be the shoulder to shoulder with the people of Southern same as those of the other inhabitants of the Territory, Rhodesia in their struggle against the oppression they each co-operating individually in the smooth running suffered at the hands of the United Kingdom and the of affairs according to his ability and training. In other white settlers who represented it. words, the members of the minority would be regarded solely as individuals and would have the same rights as 71. There had been some mention in the Press of a the Africans. strengthening of the existing ties between the Govern­ 64. In that connexion he did not rule out the possibili­ ment of Mr. Winston Field and the racist Government ty of a compromise in the event of such a solution being of South Africa. The petitioner could perhaps tell the necessary. Such a compromise could be worked out, Committee whether there were any grounds for believ­ for instance, at a constitutional conference, but the ing in the existence of an "unholy alliance". compromise would have to be such that the peoples 72. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) concerned would subsequently achieve the full right to said that there was indeed an alliance between South self-determination, Solutions of that kind had been Africa, the white settler Government of Southern adopted in some countries, in Northern Rhodesia and Rhodesia and the Salazar regime, As he had already Nyasaland, for example, where government was in the said in one of his answers, when his party had been hands of the majority of the inhabitants although the banned the previous year South African soldiers had principle of "one man, one vote" had not yet been taken part in the repression of the Southern Rhodesian applied. nationalists. In 1963 South Africa had granted the 65. The minorities in Southern Rhodesia should re­ Government of Mr. Winston Field an interest-free loan linquish their privileges, which they enjoyed simply of.£ 5 million, through a so-called Economic Develop­ because of their colour. What he had in mind in ment Corporation that had just been established. The particular was the situation in agriculture, where the fact was that the loan was to be used, not for the European minority possessed vast expanses of fertile economic development of the Territory, but for mili­ land while the African inhabitants were confined to tary purposes, in order to strengthen the position of land that was much less cultivable and was split up the white minority Government. What the Government into small lots that were not even enough to satisfy of Southern Rhodesia feared was not an invasion from the needs of the families who worked them. At the outside but an insurrection on its own territory and it present moment there was land in Rhodesia belonging was anxious to strengthen its police force. to absentee owners who lived in the United Kingdom 73, There was no doubt whatever about the existence and some of whom were even members of the United of an alliance between South Africa and Southern Kingdom Government. That was an agricultural system Rhodesia. Recently there had been cases of refugees based on racial considerations and it should be coming into Southern Rhodesia from South Africa, some abolished. of them holding papers issued in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, who had been arrested and sent back to 66. In the political field, too, members of the minority South Africa. should have the right to take part in the life of the coun­ 74. Recently, too, legislative measures had been try, not as a racial group but as individuals. He would adopted in Southern Rhodesia to prevent Africans who point out that ZANU itself was not a racial political had come from other countries in Africa and settled in party, but he must admit that so far the Europeans had Southern Rhodesia from organizing movements against shown no eagerness to join it and only a few liberal the regime of their country of origin. That measure was elements among the were members. especially directed against Africans from Mozambique who might try to form a front to struggle against the 67, Mr. MONGONO (Nigeria) thanked the petitioner, Salazar regime in their own country, That measure was whose point of view he fully understood. It was a pity enough to show that there was an alliance between the 1442nd meeting- 8 October 1963 61

Portuguese Government and the white settler Govern­ Rhodesia. That campaign was replacing the campaign ment of Southern Rhodesia. k.n~wn as "Voice and Vision", in which British poli­ 75. Even more recently some legislative provisions ticians had been invited by Sir in the hope of gaining their support for the cause of the Federation had been adopted which made it illegal for anyone es­ of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. tablished in Southern Rhodesia to advocate the over­ throw of the Government of any territnry outside 81. Mr. KUNDYA (Tanganyika) thanked the petitioner Southern Rhodesia. That was evidence of goodwill and reserved the right to ask him further questions at a towards the Government of Mr. Verwoerd and it was later stage of the debate. clear that the settlers in Southern Rhodesia were re­ lying upon military aid from that Government in case 82. Mr. ATTWOOD (United States of America) pointed of need. out that, in connexion with the rule of law applied in Southern Rhodesia, the police activities mentioned by 76. In the light of all those considerations, he felt that Mr. Mugabe did not correspond to the passage in the armed forces that had belonged to the Federation document A/C.4/606 where it was stated that there of Rhodesia and Nyasaland should not be transferred at had never been any question of police interference with the present moment to the Government of Southern the liberty of law-abiding individuals; moreover, such Rhodesia. activities were a violation of the DeclarationofRights 77. Mr. KUNDYA (Tanganyika), referring to the embodied in the Constitution of the Territory. In any slanderous statements that Sir Roy Welensky had made case, it seemed that in the event of a miscarriage of at Washington, as reported in The New York Times of justice a case could be taken to the High Court and if that day, asked the petitioner if journeys such as the necessary to the Privy Council in London. He would one Sir Roy Welensky was making at the present time like to know how many cases had been taken to the could be regarded as proof that the European settlers High Court, how many complainants had obtained were launching a new offensive in an endeavour to ob­ satisfaction and how many of them had taken their tain assistance from abroad in order to strengthen case to the Privy Council. their position. 83. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) 78. Mr. MUGABE (Zimbabwe African National Union) pointed out that the new Constitution, which had been said it was true that the settlers of Southern Rhodesia in force for less than a year, left no scope for political were at present trying to induce foreign Powers to take activities: not only was freedom of movement re­ their part and for that purpose were launching a cam­ stricted but political meetings were forbidden on Sun­ paign to discredit the independent African Govern­ day, which, not being a working day, was the day on ments. As part of the campaign the Minister of Internal which they had been particularly well attended. All that Affairs, Local Government and African Education had was a serious obstacle to the political life of the Terri­ gone to Canada with the intention of convincing that tory. It was for that reason that an appeal had been made to the High Court, in order to induce the re­ count~y that the white settler Government was working effectively to develop Southern Rhodesia and that the sponsible minister to give the reasons why he had for­ policy of that Government was better than that of the bidden political meetings on Sunday. As far as he knew, independent African States. Efforts were being made to that was the only case in which there had been an present the independent African Governments as cor­ appeal. No ve:dict had been given yet, but the plaintiff, rupt Governments practising a policy of discrimina­ who was active both in trade-union circles and in tion. Sir Roy Welensky, who in view of the dissolution nationalist circles, meant to take the case to the Privy of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland no longer Council if necessary. If the Government received its had any official role to play, was at present in the authority d1rem: from the people, the problem would not United States and he too was trying to discredit the arise. African States, which made the "mistake"offavouring 84. The CHAIRMAN thanked Mr. Mugabe for the a modification of the present r~gime in Southern assistance he had given the Committee in its efforts to Rhodesia. find a just solution to the problem of Southern Rhodesia. He asked him to hold himself at the disposal of the 79. The object of the campaign that was being con­ Committee in case it needed to ask him any further ducted was to prolong the domination of the white q\lestions. settlers in Central Africa and it was hoped that the United States, which had hitherto been well disposed Mr. Robert Mugabe, representative of the Zimbabwe towards the developing countries, would cease to give African National Union (ZANU) withdrew. those countries any financial assistance. 85. Mr. DE MIRANDA (Portugal), referring to the 80. In connexion with the same campaign, well-known mention that had been made of an alleged alliance or influential persons from Canada, Australia and the between Portugal and Rhodesia, recalled that his dele­ United States were being invit0d to Southern Rhodesia gation had stated its position clearly at the previous where every effort was made to impress them b; session. His country wished to maintain the same visits specially arranged to show them how the white good-neighbourly relations with Southern Rhodesia as settlers were organized and thus to induce them to it had with all its other neighbours. change their attitude towards the problem of Southern The meeting rose at 1.45 p.m.

Litho in U.N. 77401-July 1964-2,300