Expressing the Security Council's Conviction That the Situation in South
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Part II 213 “3. Deprecates the non-compliance of the Govern- tion existing in South .\frica. The resolution also ment of Portugal with the resolution of 31 July 1963; called for “concerted meascres of sanction against the Government of South Africa”. “4, Reaffirms the interpretation of self-determi- nation as laid down in General I’\ssembly resolution M the 1040th meeting on 23 Ju1y 1963, the Security 1514 (XV) as follows: Council decided to include the question in the agenda.w The Council considered the question at its 1050th to “‘Ml peoples have the right to self-determination; 1056th meetings, from 31 .Julv to 7 August 1963. by virtue of that right they freely determine their The representatives of Tunisia, tiLiberia, Sierra L,eone political status and freely pursue their economic, and Madagascar were invited to take part in the social and cultural development’; discussion. ‘29 “5, Kotes General Assembly resolution 1542 (XV) At the 1050th meeting on 31 July 1963, the President which enumerated, inter alia, Territories under (Morocco) recalled that the Council at its 103&t Portuguese administration as falling under the cate- meeting had decided to invite the representative of gory of &on-Self-Governing Territories within the the Republic of South Africa. to take part in the con- meaning of Chapter XI of the Charter; sideration of the question.“-“/ .a telegram to this effect “6. Believes that action by the Government of had been sent to the Government of South Africa. The Portugal to grant an amnesty to all persons im- reply had just been received, and it indicated that the prisoned or exiled for advocating self-determination Government of South Africa declined the invitation of in these Territories will be an evidence of its good the Council. The letterwfrom the permanent repre- faith; sentative of South Africa-which was read to the Council-stated that the South African Government “7. Requests the Secretary-General to continue had decided not to participate in the discussion of with his efforts and report to the Council not later the Council on matters u?ich it considered to fall than 1 June 1964.” solely within its domestic jurisdiction. The letter The question remained on the list of matters of which also stated that the African States that-had-segbmitted the Security Council is sei2ed.w the item had “tried to justify their hostility and inter- ference in South Africa’s domestic affairs by relying THE QUESTION OF RACE CONFLICT IN on the totally unfounded allegation that South Africa SOUTH AFRICA is a threat to international peace and security”. It was the view of the South African Government that these IMTIAL PROCEEDIKGS African States, or some among them, had threatened peace and order in southern Africa and had initiated By lettersdated 11 July 1963, the representatives of Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African preparations for the use of force against South Republic, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Leo- Africa. Evidence of their intentions could be found poidvii& I&tior,+, Er;hiopia, Gabon, Gi;,:.-. -, Guinea, i?. the relevant paragraph s of resolutions adopted by Ivory Coast, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, the African States at their recent conference in Mauritania, Morocco, Mger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Addis Ababa, and in the reported statements of Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanganyika, Togo, certain African leaders, In this regard, reference Tunisia, Uganda: United Arab Republic and Upper leas made to contributions offered by several African States to finance militarv and other activities en- Volta requested the President of the Security Council ” to convene an early meeting of the Council “to con- visaged against South Africa. This “active incitement from abroad and systematic encouragement and sub- . sider the explosive situation existing in the Republic of South Africa, which constitutes a serious threat to sidization of the small groups of subversive Rantu, international peace and security”. supported by Communist elements and fellou* travel- lers in South Africa” had recentlv compelled the Stating that the situation stemmed from the apartheid South African Government to assume increased legis- policies of the Government of the Republic of South lative powers for the maintenance of order and Africa, the representatives of the African States stability, The South African Government had decided urged the SecuritJV Council to take the necessary action therefore that “no useful purpose would be served by to find a solution, “due to the systematic refusal of re-stating its case at the Security Council”. that Government to comply with the relevant resolu- tions of the General Assembly and the Security Coun- Decision of 7 August 1963 (1056th meeting): cil”. It was noted further that “the extreme gravity of 0i Expressing the Security Council’s conviction the situation” had been a matter of “deep concern” to that the situation in South Africa was seriously the Heads of State and Governments of the Independent disturbing intema tional peace and security; *African States who had met at the Conference of (ii) Deprecating s tron& the policies of South Addis Ababa from 22 to 25 hlavw 1963, and had Africa in its perpetuation of racial discriminq- adopted a resolution on this question, the relevant fion as being inconsistent with the principles provisions of lthhich were quoted in an attached contained in the Charter, and contrary to its memorandum, The resolution, in part, called for the dispatch of a delegation of the Foreign Ministers 5 1040th meeting: para. 6. of Liberia, Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Tunisia Wf 1050th meeting: para. 4. to inform the Security Council of the explosive situa- ???f 1050th meeting: para. 5. For ccrsderatlor. concerr.lr,g tie ques- Uon of the effect of the extezsior. of the lnvltatlon, see chapter III, .Sdl/ S/5500. Case 26. 5.32/ S+/5341j, O.R, 18th year, Supp. for July-Sept. 1363, pp. 11-l-1. w S/53dl, 1OSOth meeting: para. c. 214 Chapter VIII. Maintenance of international peace and security obligations as a Member State of the United been greatly aggravated by an accelerated arms Nations; build-up and by the increasingly provocative attitude (iii) Calling upon the Government of South Africa of the South African Government, Its arms build-up to a bandon the policies of apartheid and racial and its multiplicity of 1~~s against freedom consti- discrimination, and to liberate all persons sub- tuted the greatest threat to peace and security on jet ted to prison or other restrictions for ha vi@ the African continent, Besides, that Government was opposed the policies of apartheid; extending its policies and practices to the territory Calling solemnly upon all States to cease forth- of South West Africa, which it had unlawfully occu- with the sale and shipment ofarms, ammunition pied. The United Nations, to be true to its Charter, of all types and military vehicles to South could not any longer tolerate the presence in South Africa; West Africa of the Government of South Africa, or the 0V Requesting the Secretary-General to keep the extension to that territory of the doctrine and policies situation in South Africa under observation of apartheid imposed by that Government. In conclusion and to report to the Security Council by it was stated that the Heads of the African States of 30 October 1963 the Organization of African Unity wished to add their plea to those of the General Assembly and the Special The Foreign Ministers of Sierra Leone*, Tunisia*, Committee that the Security Council would adopt the Madagascar * and Liberia *, speaking at the 1050th and measures provided in the Charter and recommended 1051st meetings on behalf of all African member by the Special Committee to compel the Government States of the Organization of African Unity, stated that of the Republic of South *Africa to abandon, before it the findings and recommendations of the Special Com- was too late, its present collision course. The mittee of the General Assembly on the policies of African representatives also urged the Council to give apartheid of the Government of South Africa were full support to General Assembly resolution 1761 supported in a resolution that had been unanimously (XVII) . 587/ adopted at the Addis Ababa Conference of that Organization. At the 1054th meeting on 6 -4ugust 1963, the repre- sentative of Ghana introduced a draf; resdiution-w In reviewing the past history of the question, they jointly sponsored with Yorocco and the Philippines. called attention to the fact that the South African Government had continued to disregard the resolu- According to operative paragraph 3 of the draft tions of the General Assembly and the Security resolution, the Council would call upon all States Council which had called upon that Government to to boycott all South African goods and to refrain from revise its policies and bring them into conformity exporting to South Africa strategic materials of with its obligations and responsibilities under the direct military value. Charter of the United Kations. They further remarked At the 1056th meeting on 7 August 1963, upon the that the only reason which had been given by the request of the representative of the United States, Government of South Africa for its disregard of the a separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 3, resolutions against its policies of apartheid was to which was not acropted. There were 5 votes in favour, state that the United Nations was not authorized none against, and 6 abstentions, =The draft reso- under the Charter to intervene in matters which lution, as amended, was then adopted by 9 votes in * were essentially within the domestic jurisdiction favour, none against, and 2 abstenti0ns.m of any State. In their view, the validity of Article 2 (7) was not disputed but those who drew up the The resolution ‘aread* .