United Nations FOURTH COMMITTEE, 1699th GENERAL MEETING ASSEMBLY Mondey, 23 October 1967, at 3.25 p.m. TWENTY-SECOND SESSION Official Records NEW YORK CONTENTS could neither intervene nor oblige any Member State Page to submit the question for settlement under the pro­ cedures outlined in Chapter XI of the Charter. Requests for hearings (continued) Request concerning British Honduras (agenda 3. Lastly, his delegation considered that the applicant item 23) (continued) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 109 did not have the qualifications required of a legitimate Request concerning Equatorial Guinea (agenda petitioner, and that to judge from his statement to the item 23) (continued) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 109 Special Committee at its 548th meeting on 30 August Agenda item 64: 1967 (see A/6700/Rev.1, chap. XXIII, paras. 957-981), his request'seemed rather to be motivatedbypolitical Question of South West Africa (hearing of and personal considerations aimed at securing a posi­ petitioners) (continued) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 110 tion of advantage in the forthcoming electoral contest in Belize. Furthermore, he categorically rejected the Chairman: Mr. George J. TOMEH (Syria). wording of Mr. Goldson's letter to the Chairman of the Fourth Committee, which referred to a "threat of recolonization by Guatemala". His country had never Requests for hearings {continued) been a colonial Power, and the Committee was well aware of its advocacy of decolonization. REQUEST CONCERNING BRITISH HONDURAS (AGENDA ITEM 23) (continued) (A/C.4/694) 4, Mr. SHAW (United Kingdom), referring to the Guatemalan representative's statement, said that 1. The CHAIRMAN drew the attention of Committee his Government wished it to be clearly understood members to the request for a hearing on the subject that it had not the slightest doubt as to its sovereignty of British Honduras, submitted by Mr. Philip S. W. over British Honduras. The two States concerned had Goldson, Leader of the Opposition (A/C.4/694). nevertheless submitted their dispute over the Terri­ 2. Mr. CADENA HERNANDEZ (Guatemala) said he tory to the mediation of a third Power. He hoped that wished to state his country's position with regard to the mediation would achieve a solution satisfactory to the request for a hearing on the subject of the Terri­ all concerned and that the members of the Committee tory of Belize (A/C.4/694). The prime essential for would bear his statement in mind in making their enabling the Committee to decide whether the hearing decision on the requested hearing. should be granted was that it should be acquainted 5. Mr. CADENA HERNANDEZ (Guatemala), replying with the current situation. The background to the to a question by the CHAIRMAN, said he had not made situation was as follows: first, his country hadalways a formal objection. As he had said already, he was co:1sidered Belize a part of its territory under inter­ not opposed to the hearing of the petitioners, but had national law and the Constitution of the Republic de­ wished to state his objections to a hearing in the scribed it as such-a fact which had been confirmed present circumstances. He therefore requested that at the first regular meeting of Central American the hearing should be postponed. Foreign Ministers, held at Antigua, Guatemala, in August 1955. Second, his country had been pressing 6. The CHAIRMAN explained that the Committee's its claims to the Territory against the United King­ immediate task was not to fix a date for the hearing dom for more than a century and had entered appro­ but to decide whether or not it should be granted. If priate reservations at every international conference, there was no objection, he would take it that the Com­ as witness the reservation made recently by the mittee decided to grant the hearing. Guatemalan Foreign Minister at the 1566th plenary It was so decided. meeting of the General Assembly, Third, the two States had jointly agreed to submit the dispute to mediation by the Government of the United States of REQUEST CONCERNING EQUATORIAL GUINEA America, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, (AGENDA ITEM 23) (continued) (A/C.4/695) of the United Nations Charter, their common concern 7. The CHAIRMAN drew the attention of Committee being to ensure the economic, social, cultural and all members to the request for a hearing (A/C.4/695) other development of the people of Belize. Mediation submitted by Mr. Saturnine !bongo Iyanga, a member had begun towards the end of 1965 and was approaching of the Movimiento Nacional de Liberaci6n de la Guinea completion. In the circumstances, his delegation did E cuatorial (MONALIGE). If there was no objection, he not consider it proper for the Fourth Committee and would take it that the Committee decided to grant the the Special Committee to examine the situation in request. Belize. It was a matter coming within the internal jurisdiction of his country, and the United Nations It was so decided. 109 A/C.4/SR.1699 110 General Assembly - Twenty-second Session - Fourth Committee 8. Mr. ARIAS SALGADO (Spain) said that his dele­ ment had repeatedly made it clear that it would not gation reserved the right to make a statement at a abide by the United Nations resolutions on South West later stage on certain assertions made by Mr. lbongo Africa because it considered them illegal. That was a Iyanga in his letter, particularly the reference to the stand which South Africa had maintained ever since Constitutiornl Conference. the question of South West Africa had been taken up by the United Nations and the International Court of AGENDA ITEM 64 Justice. Question of South West Africa (hearing of petitioners) 12. The failure of the United Nations to use force (continued) (A/C.4/692 and Add.l-4) against South Africa was contributing to the deteriora­ tion of the situation. Indeed, not a few believed that At the invitation ofthe Chairman, Mr. JacobKuhangua the United Nations, by displaying such forbearance and Mr. Gottfried H. Geingob, representatives of the in dealing with South Africa, was encouraging that South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), country to persevere in its behaviour. South Africa's Mr. Nathaniel Mbaeva and Mr. Mburumba Kerina, lack of co-operation had lasted too long; it was now representatives of the South West Africa National time for the United Nations to change its attitude United Front (SWANUF), Mr. Festus U. Muundjua, and take action to settle the protracted dispute between representative of the South West Africa National South Africa and itself once and for all. Union (SWANU), and the Reverend Michael Scott, representative of the International League for the 13. Some western countries were opposed to the use Rights of Man, took places at the Committee table. of force against South Africa and even deplored refe­ rences to force. In that connexion, he recalled that, 9. Mr. MUUNDJUA (South West Africa National at the fifth special session of the General Assembly, Union) expressed his deep disappointment at the Canada, Italy and the United States had submitted a regrettable ineffectiveness of the United Nations in draft resolution ll calling for the continuation of the dealing with the South West African problem. He re­ dialogue with the South African Government. Such an minded the Committee of General Assembly resolu­ approach to the problem was frivolous. The United tions 2145 (XXI) and 2248 (S-V), the first of which had Nations had been trying for more than twenty years ended South Africa's Mandate over South West Africa to secure South Africa's co-operation by peaceful and placed that Territory under the direct responsi­ means; the result had always been negative. The bility of the United Nations. The truth of the matter "dialogue" had been no more than a tactical measure was that the United Nations had still not assumed any to retard South West Africa's freedom. SWANU there­ responsibility, direct or indirect, for South West fore rejected it, as it also rejected the Soviet Union's Africa, which was still controlled by the South African attempt to refer the issue to the Organization of racists. SWANU therefore considered that the United African Unity (OAU). He wondered how that organiza­ Nations had deceived the people of South West Africa tion could solve a problem which the United Nations and had not discharged its obligations under resolu­ was unable to solve. The attempt had been a further tion 2145 {XXI). That failure was due, not to external example of hypocrisy and capitulation. obstacles, but to the Organization's unwillingness to use force to coerce South Africa into accepting its 14. When the United States, Canada, Italy and the decisions. Soviet Union had voted in favour of resolution 2145 (XXI) they had taken a step forward, but in supporting 10. Resolution 2248 (S-V) had established a United delay and evasion they had not only impeded South Nations Council for South West Africa responsible West Africa's freedom but had moved backwards. As for administering the Territory until independence. for the United Kingdom Government, it was an ally of The Council was to have been based in South West South Africa and could not even contain the rebels in Africa, but it had not made a single effort to go to the Rhodesia; nothing could therefore be expected of the Territory and was still comfortably installed in the United Kingdom. United Nations building. He wondered how the Council could fulfil its mission without leaving New York. The 15. He realized that Malawi, which had abstained in people of South West Africa had had their fill of the vote on General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI) at rhetoric and diplomatic hypocrisy; they believed that the 1454th plenary meeting, was in a precarious eco­ the only thing that was important and necessary now nomic situation and had therefore become a South was action.