General Assembly Resolutions: Frrst, the Primary Responsi· Comprehensive and Mandatory Programme of Sanctions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United Nations FOURTH COMMITTEE, 1768th GENERAL MEETIN& ASSEMBLY Friday, 18 October 1968, at 10.55 a.m TWENTY-THIRD SESSION Official Records NEW YORK CONTENTS tion 232 (1966). The United Kingdom Government was responsible for the situation and its inaction had given the Page Smith regime just what it needed: namely, time to Agenda item 23: consolidate itself. The United Kingdom Government should Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of not hold talks with members of the minority racist regime Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples: report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to but with the true representatives of the people of the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting Zimbabwe. Moreover, the principles which that Govern of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples: ment professed to uphold were expressed in vague terms Southern Rhodesia (continued) an indication of its complicity. General debate (continued) . ..................... 4. It was the duty of the United Nations to condenm not only the Southern Rhodesian regime, South Africa and Chairman: Mr. P. V. J. SOLOMON Portugal, but all those who were assisting the forces of (Trinidad and Tobago j. racism and colonialism. All nations should implement the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and the United Kingdom, as the administering Power, should compel South Africa to withdraw its troops, who were fighting against the AGENDA ITEM 23 people of Zimbabwe. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR supported the adoption of measures designed to put an end Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting to the situation. of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples: report of the Special Committee on the 5. Mr. PANDEY (Nepal) said that, ever since the illegal Situation with regard to the Implementation· of declaration of independence, the question of Southern the Declaration on ths Granting of Independence Rhodesia had been growing increasingly serious. The to Colonial Countries and Peoples: Southern professed policy of the United Kingdom Government had been to withhold independence until majority rule had Rhodesia (continued) (A/7200/Rev.1, chap. VI) been established in Southern Rhodesia. Between 1961 and 1965 it had resolutely resisted all United Nations efforts to GENERAL DEBATE (continued) establish majority rule. Even after the unilateral declaration of independence, it had waited a year before bringing the 1. Mr. KORNEENKO (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Re question before the Security Council. Those twelve months public) said that mankind could not tolerate the situati~n had given the rebel regime time to consolidate its position. created by the colonial racist regime in Southern RhodeSia, which constituted a threat to the newly independent 6. Security Council resolutions 232 (1966) and 253 African States. The situation in the Territory reflected the (1968) had not produced the desired results. Moreover, the determination of the forces of colonialism and racism to Smith regime, in its policy of disregarding the legitimate make up for the defeat they had suffered in other parts of aspirations of 95 per cent of the population of Southern Africa. South Africa and Portugal were carrying out those Rhodesia and introducing separate racial development, was policies, obviously influenced by the United States, the receiving the co-operation and support of South Africa and United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany and Portugal. By refusing to recognize the Security Council with the support of NATO. resolutions, those two countries had violated Articles 25 and 49 of the Charter. 2. Monopolies continued to extract the resources of the continent, and the United Kingdom, the United States and 7. The repressive measures adopted by the minority rebel the Federal Republic of Germany had capital invested in regime to safeguard its position in Southern Rhodesia had mining and farming. That explained why those countries left the African majority with no choice but revolt. Their were making every effort to prevent the application of struggle for freedom was meeting with an inhuman response sanctions against South Africa and Portugal, which were from the rebel regime, which had gone so far as to execute helping Southern Rhodesia. African nationalists, in open defiance of constitutional authority. His delegation understood the sentiments of the 3. The passive policy of the United Kingdom, the adminis African nationalists and recognized their legitimate aspira· tering Power, permitted the stationing in Southern Rh~ tions and their right to freedom and self-government on the desia of South African troops, which were fJghting against basis of the democratic principle of one man, one vote. the people of Zimbabwe. The Western Powers continued to maintain commercial relations with the Salisbury Govern 8. The only measure likely to be understood by the illegal ment, despite the provisions of Security Council resolu- regime was the use of force. It was to be hoped that the A/C.4/SR.1768 --------2 -----------------Gene--ral Assembly - Twenty-third Session - Fourth Committee United Kingdom Government would not shift the whole against the "pressure groups" of which the Reverend burden of responsibility to the United Nations. Since the Michael Scott had spoken a few days earUer (l763rd mandatory sanctions had proved ineffective, there remained meeting), since those groups were working against the no choice bu t to use forc.e. inalienable rights of the African majority in Southern Rhodesia. 9. The time had come to urge the Security Council to consider extending the sanctions to include tile srverance of 14. The Uni ted Kingdom had drawn up the six principles all communir.ations with Southern Rhodesia. The Council because it mistakenly believed that the problem of might also exhort, in stricter tenns, Member States and Sou them Rhodesia could be solved only by political means. •1on-Mer.1ber States, p:trticularly tho:;e having trade rela It seemed no· '• however, that emphasis was being placed on tions w'th Southern Rhodesia, to c~ rry out its decisions only two of those pl'i 1: ciples; shortly there would be faithfully. Lastly, since South Africa and Portugal had been emphasis on none of them. What was happening was that, providing the illegal rt<gime with lo.>p-holes whereby to by that means, tl1e Smith regime was being given an defeat the purpose of the decisions, the sanctions might be opportunity to consolidate itself; that was a sell-out. After extended to cover those two countries as welL each of the talks, Ian Smith took away a docume nt for 10. Mr. COLE (Sic'To Leone) said that, following the study and the reaction was always the same: disagreement recent di :cussions between the United Kingdom Prime with its proposals. A few months would then elapse and Minister and the Southern Rhodesiat rebel leader, their Southem Rhodesia would take a further dramatic step to respective positions were clear-cut. Mr Wilson continued to consolidate the illegal r~gime. maintain his six principles, while Jan Smith, the ma n whom the United Kingdom Government had called a rebel and I 5. His Government l.lOntinued to rega rd the racist regime whose acts had been officially desc1 ibed as treasonable, as a fra ud perpetrated by a white minority against the stated that he did not expect to see Africans controlling the entire African population; it once again urged the United Government during his lifetime. Kingdom to live up to the expectations of all the countries which looked to it to put an end to the regime, through the 11. The third anniversary of the uni ateral declaration of use of sanctions or otherwise. The way in which the United independence in Southern Rhodesia was not far off and the Kingdom Government had applied the sanctions showed racist minority regime would again be congratulating itself clearly how ineffectual such sanctions were ; the United on the security, stability and boomi ng economy of the Kingdom must revise and streng,then them if it wished to Territory. On 4 October 1967 ( Ho83rd meeting), the maintain its reputation as a just arbiter in Africa. United Kingdom representative, speaJ. ing on the question of Southern Rhodesia, had said that the sanctions would 16. The right to freedom and to self-determination were require some time before they had eff<:ct and had sought to basic hu.man rights and it was alarming that the legitimate show that trade with Southern Rhcdesia had decreased demands of the courageous fighters in southern Africa for considerably, particularly in respect c f imports. The reply recognition of those rights should be met by acts of of Jan Smith's regime to those staterrents appeared in the savagery, bestiality and murder such as were taking place in report of the Special Committee (A/7l00/Rev.l, chap. Vl, Southern Rhodesia at the present time, and that they para. I 0 I). The following paragraphs provided information should be condoned and abetted by the nations which about aircraft delivered by Italy, Japanese and French spoke so glibly about the "free world". automobiles reaching the territory without difficulty, and the negligible decrease in imports from the United Kingdom 17. Mr. TURKSON {Ghana), referring to the statement into Southern Rhodesia. The sanctions had been in force made by the Under-Secretary-General for Trusteeship and fo r two years and the onus of proof c.f their effect, if any, Non-Self-Governing Territories at the 1759th meeting rested fully wi th the United Kingdom. (A/CA/707), said that the priority which had been ac corded to the item demonstrated the groWing concern felt 12. In his statement at the l759th meeting, the United by all about the deteriorating situation in southern Africa Kingdom representative had subtly informed the United and especi~y in Southern Rhodesia.