2183rd meeting- 5 December 1975 381 2183rd meeting

Friday, 5 December 197 5, at 11.10 a.m.

Chairman: Mrs. Famah JOKA-BANGURA (Sierra Leone).

A/C.4/SR.2183

AGENDA ITEM 23 political power should be transferred to the legitimate representatives of the people of the Territory ifl accord­ Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of ance with the desire and aspirations of the majority of the Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Terri­ people of the Coast democratically and justly assessed in tories not covered under other agenda items) (continued) the above-mentioned conditions. In the light of the (A/10023 (parts I, II and IV), A/10023/Add.6 (parts I foregoing, if France fails to give practical expression to and II), A/10023/Add.S (part III), A/C.4/804, A/C.4/ the legitimate aspirations of the people we shall hold L.l122/Rev.2) France responsible for the irreparable consequences that are bound to follow. I am therefore appealing to Your QUESTION OF FRENCH SOMALILAND: Excellency to intervene in the matter so that the spirit CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT RESOLUTIONS and letter of my appeal be understood and heeded in the {continued}* interest of world peace and stability in the region. Highest consideration." 1. Mr. HUSSEIN (Somalia)** read out the text of the following cable sent by the President of Somalia, General 2. In addition, he wished to inform the Committee that he Mohamed Siad Barre, to all Heads of State of African and also had detailed information regarding the meeting of the Arab countries: OAU Co-ordinating Committee for the Liberation of Africa, held at Dar es Salaam from 24 to 28 November "I have today conveyed my final appeal to the 1975 on the question of French Somaliland. President of France, H.E. Valery G. d'Estaing, on the question of granting independence to French Somaliland. 3. While it was true that the conclusion of that meeting On our part we have from the outset endeavoured to seek had been more or less as described in ~e statement made a just and peaceful settlement of the problem through by the representative of Ethiopia at the 2179th meeting, direct contacts with the French leaders regarding the there had been three basic conditions put forward by both future of this Territory, taking due cognizance of the the liberation movement known as the Front de liberation legitimate desire and aspirations of the people concerned. de Ia Cote des Somalis (FLCS) and the representatives of Our persistent call for independence of French Somali­ the Ligue populaire africaine pour !'independence (LPAI). land was also consistently reaffirmed by the active and The conditions were that the barbed-wire fence surrounding the unqualified support of international and regional the capital city, Djibouti, should be dismantled, that all organizations including United Nations, OAU, Arab those who had been expelled from the Territory should be League, non-aligned conferences and the Islamic confer­ allowed to return and that the expulsions that were still ences. I have appealed to the President of France to going on as a daily routine should cease. respect the wishes of the majority of the people of the Territory before granting independence. In our view, and 4. Those conditions, together with the demand for im­ according to the traditional norms of any administering mediate and unconditional independence, were the basis for Power, the following measures should be taken before­ the recommendations of the Co-ordinating Committee on hand. (1) Dissolve the existing so-called Territorial Assem­ which the Administrative Secretary-General of OAU had bly and the puppet local Government as well as all been asked to try to arrange for the start of consultations colonial laws and related institutions. (2) Withdraw colo­ and negotiations between the parties most directly con­ nial military forces from the Territory. (3) Dismantle the cerned. mines and barbed wire surrounding the city of Djibouti. ( 4) Allow the return to the Territory of the thousands of 5. The legality of the participation of the representative of citizens arbitrarily expelled from the Territory. (5) Con­ the so-called Government Council in the work of the vene a constitutional conference in which all political Co-ordinating Committee was questionable, since OAU parties, liberation movements and other organizations recognized the two liberation movements, namely, FLCS engaged in the liberation struggle of the French Somali and the Mouvement de liberation de Djibouti (MLD), and Coast shall participate: United Nations, OAU and Arab the Opposition party, LPAI, as the true and authentic League observers should be invited to take part in such a representatives of the people of the Territory. Nevertheless, conference as observers. (6) After all the foregoing his delegation welcomed any and all moves aimed at conditions are met, France should grant immediate and accelerating the process of self-determination and indepen­ unconditional independence to the Territory and the dence in the Territory in a climate of national reconcilia­ tion and harmonization. * Resumed from the 218lst meeting. ** The statements on the question of French Somaliland made at this meeting by the representatives of Somalia, France and Ethiopia 6. Mr. DE LATAILLADE (France) said that his delegation are reproduced in extenso in accordance with the decision taken by would not participate in the vote on draft resolution the Committee at its 2172nd meeting. A/C.4/L.ll22/Rev. 2. 382 General Assembly - Thirtieth Session - Fourth Committee 7. The text dealt with a Territory which was under French 14. The CHAIRMAN thanked the representative of the sovereignty. The discussion which had preceded the draft­ United Kingdom for the spirit of co-operation and under­ ing of the text and the text itself were therefore incompa t­ standing he had shown. ible with respect for the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States embodied in Article 2, para­ 15. Mr. IBRAHIM (Ethiopia), referring to the appeal made graph 7, of the Charter. by the representative of Guinea to the United Kingdom delegation, said that his delegation would also like to 8. His delegation would, however, like to recall before the request, if not a separate vote on all the paragraphs referred vote that French policy with regard to the French Territory to, at least a separate vote on paragraph 3, particularly the of the Afars and the Issas had been clearly described in the phrase beginning with the words "and of all political statement made to the Committee at the 2168th meeting. refugees ...". By way of explanation, he would like to It did not intend to reply to the groundless allegations indicate his delegation's reasons for that request. made during the course of the debate; indeed, their excessive nature automatically deprived them of any 16. In its brief statement at the 21 79th meeting, his interest and meaning. However, his delegation wished to delegation had pointed out that it was with great reluctance object most strenuously to certain remarks concerning the and only in deference to the wishes of its African brothers consultation of the people of the Territory. France did not and sisters that his Government had accepted the com­ need lessons from anyone on the subject of respect for promise draft resolution contained in document A/C.4/ democratic procedures and freedom of expression. L.1122/Rev.l. 17. At the same meeting, the representative of Somalia 9. His delegation also wished to comment on some had introduced numerous amendments (A/C.4/L.ll23) to statements which had raised doubts concerning the Statute that draft resolution. His own delegation had made it clear of internal autonomy of the Territory, provided for by Act there and then that nothing less than the draft resolution as No. 67-521 of 3 July 1967. In accordance with French legal submitted by the sponsors on 2 December could satisfy his and constitutional provisions, that Statute was specifically Government and that the amendments were therefore designed to transfer most administrative, economic and totally unacceptable to it. financial powers to the locally elected authorities. Very broad autonomy was therefore envisaged and no one could 18. In spite of his delegation's insistence that the draft reasonably question its scope. should be left intact, however, in draft resolution A/C.4/ L.1122/Rev.2 paragraph 3 had been amended to accom­ 10. As for the future of the Territory, his delegation modate the demands of the Somali delegation. would confme itself to solemnly reaffirming that France would not fail to facilitate the Territory's accession to 19. While his delegation could have accepted the draft independence as soon as the population expressed a desire resolution as sponsored by 10 African delegations, it had for independence. The population, through its representa­ serious misgivings concerning the amendments insisted tives, had already on several occasions, indeed recently, upon by Somalia with respect to paragraph 3 thereof. It clearly indicated that it would like the Territory to evolve was convinced that the retention of the Somali amend­ towards independence. In that context, before the end of ments to paragraph 3 would adversely affect the attainment the year, the President of the French Republic intended to of genuine nationhood by the people of the Territory of receive the representatives of the Territory to discuss with the Afars and the Issas. The most significant reason for his them the future they envisaged for it. On that occasion, delegation's misgivings was the following. they would undoubtedly refer to the latest discussions in the Territorial Assembly and the action which would be 20. Paragraph 3 dealt, inter alia, with the return of called for accordingly. refugees. As he had pointed out in his statement in the Committee at the 2172nd meeting, the problem of the 11. The CHAIRMAN informed members of the Com­ so-called "refugees" had arisen when non-residents of the mittee that the United Kingdom delegation had requested a Territory of the Afars and the Issas and nationals of a separate roll-call vote on paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of draft neighbouring State had been infiltrated into the Territory resolution A/C.4/L.ll22/Rev.2. with a view to changing its demographic balance in order to achieve a political outcome favourable to that neighbouring State. His Government was not aware of any credible 12. Mrs. CISSE (Guinea), speaking as a sponsor of the evidence so far that those who had been expelled from the draft resolution, urged the representative of the United Territory were bona fide citizens of Djibouti. Paragraph 3 Kingdom not to insist on a separate vote on certain parts of of draft resolution A/C.4/L.1122/Rev. 2 was worded in such it. While she understood perfectly well the motives of the a way that it could be interpreted, by those who so desired, representative of the United Kingdom, she wished to recall as permitting the reinfiltration of those same non-nationals that the drafting group responsible for the draft resolution back into the Territory. Concerned at that possibility, his had made ~very effort to produce a text which would be delegation had tried its best to avoid the inclusion of the acceptable to all the interested parties. amendment, which could be used as a pretext for sub­ verting the political processes in the Territory. 13. Mr. RICHARDSON (United Kingdom) said that he would withdraw his request for a separate vote on 21. The insistence on that amendment to make the draft paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of draft resolution A/C.4/L.1122/ resolution acceptable to the representative of Somalia, as Rev.2. explained at length by the latter in an earlier statement, as 2l83rd meeting- 5 December 1975 383 well as the ultimatum the Committee had heard read out at 29. Mr. IBRAHIM (Ethiopia) said that he would have the current meeting, had accentuated his delegation's liked a separate vote on the end of paragraph 3 at least. concern about the possible interpretation which the Nevertheless, he would not insist on a separate vote, on the Government of Somalia was likely to give to the amend­ understanding that he would vote against draft resolution ment. A/C.4/L.1122/Rev.2 if it was put to the vote as a whole.

22. The amendments to paragraph 3 as it had originally 30. Mr. HUSSEIN (Somalia) expressed surprise that the been formulated by the drafting committee of the Mrican representative of Ethiopia had claimed that no inhabitants group of States had therefore totally altered the substance had been hounded out of the Territory, whereas the and objective of the entire draft resolution, which was a administering Power itself did not deny that fact in its carefully balanced document. Since his country was only statements. It seemed that Ethiopia sometimes became the too familiar with Somalia's tactics, it could under no spokesman of France and that a conspiracy between the circumstances accept those amendments. two countries could be said to exist.

23. His delegation would vote in favour of the draft 31. Mr. SANON (Upper Volta), speaking on a point of resolution as a whole only if the amendments in question order, asked the representative of Somalia not to reopen at were deleted and the 10-Power draft resolution contained that stage of the discussion a controversy which, by in document A/C.4/L.l122/Rev.l was left intact. If that creating animosity within the Committee and delaying its minimum concession could not be secured from the work, could only harm the people of Djibouti, whose rights delegation of Somalia, his delegation would be unable to the Committee should be defending. support draft resolution A/C.4/L.1122/Rev.2 as a whole. It 32. Mr. HUSSEIN (Somalia) said that he would like to would regret having to take that action, but his Govern­ make a brief statement rejecting the Ethiopian representa­ ment was not prepared to be an accessory to the subversion tive's allegations against Somalia. He would, however, of the political processes in Djibouti on the eve of the refrain from so doing if the representative of Ethiopia realization of the aspirations of the people to self-determi­ withdrew those allegations. nation and independence. 33. Mrs. CISSE (Guinea), speaking on a point of order, 24. He therefore appealed to the Committee to exercise its suggested that the representative of Somalia should wait influence to bring about the deletion of the amendments until the vote had taken place to make his comments and which were unacceptable to his Government and enable it could then exercise his right of reply. to support the 1()-Power draft resolution as a whole. That was the only point on which the delegations of Somalia and 34. Mr. RIF AI (Secretary of the Committee) informed the Ethiopia disagreed. members of the Committee that the Secretary-General expected the costs of the implementation of draft resolu­ 25. Mrs. CISSE (Guinea) paid a tribute to the spirit of tion A/C.4/L.1122/Rev.2, and particularly those incurred understanding which had prevailed during the work of the by the sending of a mission to the Territory, to be defrayed drafting group and the negotiating group as well as to the from the 1976 appropriations for activities linked to the effective co-operation of the delegations of Ethiopia and work of the Special Committee. Consequently, the adop­ Somalia. tion of draft resolution A/C.4/L.1122/Rev.2 would not require an additional appropriation. 26. The representative of Ethiopia had requested a sepa­ 35. Mr. AKE (Ivory Coast) said that there was every rate vote on paragraph 3; however, the decision of the OAU reason to welcome the recent development in the positions Co-ordinating Committee for the Liberation of Africa to of the various interested parties on the future of French send a commission to the Territory to try to reconcile the Somaliland. His delegation noted with true satisfaction the parties concerned indicated that the fears of the representa­ statements made both by France, which had said that it was tive of Ethiopia regarding the provisions of paragraph 3 ready to encourage the aspirations of the people of were not justified. While understanding his concern per­ Djibouti, and by Somalia and Ethiopia which had reaf­ fectly well, she urged him not to insist on a separate vote. firmed their decision to abandon any claim to the Terri­ tory_ In his statement to the Fourth Committee (2168th 27. Mr. SANON (Upper Volta) stressed that, in draft meeting), the representative of France had said that his resolution A/C.4/L.1122/Rev.2, the problem of refugees Government had taken into account the statements of the was envisaged in the context of the Convention of the President of the Government Council of Djibouti con­ Organization of African Unity Governing the Specific cerning the smooth progress of the Territory towards Aspects of Refugee Problems in Mrica, 1969, which had independence through the harmonization of political opin­ been accepted by all the African countries. The text that ions and trends in the Territory and that, should the had been drafted as the result of a compromise had been population decide that it wished to be independent, the designed not to please Somalia, as the representative of French Government would facilitate its accession to inde­ Ethiopia claimed, but to satisfy the rights of the peoples of pendence. The French delegation had, moreover, added Djibouti. that before the end of the year the President of the French Republic intended to receive the representatives of the 28. He joined the representative of Guinea in requesting Territory in order to consider the future envisaged by them the representative of Ethiopia to follow the example of the for the Territory. His delegation had great hopes of those United Kingdom and enable the Committee to take a discussions and trusted that they would lead to a peaceful decision on the draft resolution as a whole. transfer of power to the people of the Territory. 384 General Assembly - Thirtieth Session - Fourth Committee 36. Whatever the disappointment or scepticism still felt by attitude of the neighbouring countries with regard to strict certain delegations, particularly the African delegations, respect for and protection of the integrity and security of regarding the way in which the Comorian problem had been the Territory. settled, the Ivory Coast felt that the French Government should still be trusted and that the positive elements of its 41. With the independence of French Somaliland, France statement, which showed its will to decolonize the Terri­ would have rung down the curtain on its colonial history in tory in accordance with the relevant General Assembly Africa. The de colonization of Djibouti would strengthen its resolutions, should be borne in mind. His delegation was relations with the African States as a whole and particularly convinced that France, which had understood and en­ with the neighbouring countries of the Territory, Ethiopia couraged the aspirations of the Mrican countries it had and Somalia. administered to achieve independence, would remain faith­ ful to the commitments it had just given and would lead the 42. Mr. PINTO-BAZURCO (Peru) said that his delegation people of Djibouti to independence in friendship and had intended to vote for draft resolution A/C.4/L.1122/ co-operation with France and with the neighbouring coun­ Rev.2, which reflected the spirit of conciliation motivating tries. the parties concerned, but that the negative attitude taken by Ethiopia during the debate would force it to abstain. It 37. Furthermore, his delegation welcomed the statement reaffirmed the importance it attached to respect for of the representative of Somalia at the 2170th meeting, in regional agreements and insisted that the solution of any which he had assured the Committee that the question problem must take into consideration the interests of the under consideration was purely one of decolonization and parties actually involved. His delegation emphasized again self-determination and not a dispute between Ethiopia and that the process of self-determination in Djibouti had to Somalia, and that Somalia had no intention of annexing the take place in a climate of security, which was indispensable Territory, but would respect its sovereignty once it became to the future of the people of the Territory. independent. 43. Mr. OULD CHEIKH (Mauritania) said that his delega­ 38. Similarly, his delegation was pleased to note the tion would vote for the draft resolution in view of the need undertaking given by the Ethiopian Government to support to accelerate the process of decolonization. It had wel­ and respect the Territory's right to self-determination and comed the statements made at the 2168th meeting and independence. The representative of Ethiopia had assured earlier at the current meeting by the representative of the Committee at its 2172nd meeting that his country France, who had clearly indicated his country's wish to would accept the people's choice and that, if they opted for decolonize the Territory and honour the relevant resolu­ independence, Ethiopia would accept that decision and tions of the United Nations. would be glad to have as its neighbour an independent country whose sovereignty would be guaranteed by its At the request of the representative of Sweden, a vote membership in OAU. was taken by roll-call on draft resolution A/C4/L.1122/ Rev.2. 39. The positions thus taken by the Governments which had laid claim to the Territory appeared to remove all the Honduras, having been drawn by lot by the Chairman, obstacles to the Territory's accession to independence. His was called upon to vote first. delegation wished to pay a tribute to those Governments for the political judgement they had shown by reaffirming In favour: Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, their attachment to the principles of self-determination and Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, agreeing that the people of Djibouti should decide freely on Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, their future. Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, 40. In such conditions, he therefore felt that there was no Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, longer any need to dwell on the past but that every effort Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, should now be made to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab the people of Djibouti speedily. Draft resolution A/C.4/ Republic, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian L.ll22/Rev.2, which his delegation would support, did Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Repub­ however include some provisions that he felt were some­ lics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, what superfluous, particularly the tenth preambular para­ United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, graph and paragraph 4. With regard to the French military Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Afghanistan, presence in the Territory, his delegation wished to reaffrrm Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Banglt~.desh, Barbados, its position of principle that the presence or withdrawal of Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian foreign troops and the installation or dismantling of Soviet Socialist Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, military bases on the territory of a State were among the Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Demo­ attributes of sovereignty. It would be for the authorities of cratic Yemen, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, the new State, once.. it was independent, to take a sovereign Finland, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, decision on the fate of the military bases on its territory. Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau. That rule applied to Djibouti and the French military bases there. The problem could be settled through negothtions Against: Ethiopia. undertaken prior to the proclamation of independence and it would depend, in the last analysis, not only on the will of Abstaining: Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malawi, the people and Government of Djibouti, but also on the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal, 2183rd meeting- 5 December 1975 385 Sweden, Trinidad and TO'bago, United Kingdom of Great was to accelerate the decolonization of the Territory. Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, However, since one of the parties concerned had withdrawn Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, its support, her delegation had had no choice but to Denmark, El Salvador, Gabon, Germany (Federal Republic abstain. of), Greece, Guyana. 50. Mr. NAGAI (Japan) said that his delegation had voted The draft resolution was adopted by 94 votes to 1, with for the draft resolution on the understanding that the 27 abstentions. provisions of paragraph 7 did not imply support for armed struggle. It supported the right of the people of French 44. Mr. ALADOOFI (Yemen) said that his delegation had Somaliland to self-determination and welcomed,the appeal supported draft resolution A/C.4/L.l122/Rev.2 because to renounce all claims to the Territory. It felt, however, Ethiopia and Somalia had stated that they favoured the that the wording of paragraphs 1 and 4 was not entirely right of self-determination and independence of the people satisfactory in the light of the improving attitude of France, of the Territory and had promised not to interfere in its the administering Power, as indicated in the Committee by internal affairs, and because France had for its part its representative. promised to grant independence to the Territory. His delegation welcomed their constructive approaches. 51. He hoped that the question of decolonization would be solved through talks between the administering Power 45. There was reason to fear, however, that the Territory's and the people of the Territory on safeguarding their right independence would be jeopardized by efforts being made to self-determination. to safeguard certain interests, especially strategic ones, in the region-a region in which Yemen was interested because 52. Mr. HUSSEIN (Somalia) said that his delegation had of historical and cultural ties and because of its wish to already made a few remarks of a general character at the assure a better future for the inhabitants. He was certain 218lst meeting on the draft resolution which had just been that the independence of Djibouti would help to improve adopted and would limit its explanation of vote to the chances for peace and security in the entire region and paragraph 6. His Government had never asserted any claims he paid a tribute to the people of Djibouti for the struggle whatsoever over the Territory, as the records of the United which it had waged and the sacrifices which it had made ill Nations, OAU and the conferences of non-aligned countries behalf of its independence. and other international forums would substantiate. As a matter of fact, his country was proud to have requested and 46. Miss MQ)LLER (Denmark) said that her delegation had obtained as far back as 1964 the inclusion on the agenda of abstained in the vote on the draft resolution because the the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the text did not take sufficiently into account the statement Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of made at the 2168th meeting by the representative of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of the France that France would not fail, if the population were question of that Non-Self-Governing Territory pursuant to to pronounce itself in favour of independence, to facilitate Article 73 e of the Charter and the Declaration on the its accession to independence. That being the case, Den­ Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and mark was ready to support all just, constructive and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution realistic efforts in accordance with the Charter to assist all 1514 (XV). populations in their endeavour to exercise their right to self-determination. 53. Moreover, in order to dispel any possible doubt about the good faith of the Somali Government with regard to the 4 7. Mr. WALTER (New Zealand) said that his delegation future of the Territory, the President of Somalia had had intended to support the draft resolution because it was publicly declared during the twelfth ordinary session of the in agreement with the general aim of the text, in spite of Assembly of Heads of State and Government of OAU, held certain reservations, and had welcomed France's intention at Kampala in July 1975 that "the Somali Democratic to respond positively to the aspirations of the people of the Republic harbours no ambitions for the annexation of that Territory. However, the development of the debate during Territory". the meeting had forced it to abstain. His delegation nevertheless congratulated the sponsors of the draft resolu­ 54. For those reasons his delegation maintained that tion on their efforts to reach a compromise and hoped that paragraph 6 was substantially superfluous, especially in the draft would be reconsidered before being submitted to view of the declarations of the Heads of State of Somalia the plenary Assembly. and Ethiopia in which they had solemnly renounced any claims over the Territory, as they were called upon to do in 48. Mr. SAARELA (Finland) said that his delegation had paragraph 6 of the draft resolution. In any case, his country voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.4/L.l122/Rev.2 felt that the provisions of that paragraph were not because it wished to see the aspirations of the people of the applicable to it. Territory realized. It had certain reservations, however, with regard to text, certain provisions of which did not 55. Mr. FAGIOLO (Italy) said that his delegation had seem very practical with regard to the implementation of followed the debate on the question of French Somaliland the principle of self-determination. with interest and had appreciated the spirit of conciliation which had produced draft resolution A/C.4/L.l122/Rev.2. 49. Mrs. SKOTTSBERG-AHMAN (Sweden) said that her His Government had always supported efforts to enable delegation, certain reservations notwithstanding, had in­ colonial countries and peoples to achieve independence and tended to vote for the draft resolution because its basic aim had always been unsparing in its support of the irnple- 386 General Assembly - Thirtieth Session - Fourth Committee mentation of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). Italy 62. It was for those reasons and with regret that her therefore reaffirmed its traditional attitude with even delegation had found it necessary to abstain on the greater conviction, since it had solid bonds of friendship resolution. with all the countries directly concerned. It had especially appreciated the intention expressed by those countries of 63. Mr. RET ALIS (Greece) said that it was with regret reaching· a peaceful settlement while taking into account that his delegation had abstained in the vote, since the draft the wishes of the peoples of the Territory. It very much resolution dealt with a problem of decolonization and his hoped that it might still be possible for the Territory's two country had always firmly supported the principle of neighbouring countries to agree on a common position. self-determination and freedom for peoples to give expres­ sion to their aspirations. The problem of Djibouti was 56. Draft resolution A/C.4/L.ll22/Rev. 2 unfortunately exacerbated by considerations not wholly germane to the contained passages on which his delegation had reserva­ principle of self-determination, and his delegation hoped tions. First of all, it was unrealistic to speak of "imme­ that the application of that principle would not cause diate" granting of independence because only a dialogue friction from the outset between two fraternal African between the parties concerned could make it possible to countries. establish the conditions for a generally acceptable solution. Moreover, certain statements made against France did not 64. He was gratified by the statement made at the 2168th seem justified, because that country had on many occasions meeting by the representative of France, the administering displayed a constructive attitude towards the solution of Power, who had confirmed his Government's intention to the problem of Djibouti. It also seemed an exaggeration to satisfy the aspirations of the population of the Territory. call the situation in that Territory a "threat to peace". His delegation hoped that the population would soon be able to exercise its right to full and unconditional self­ 57. That was why the Italian Government could not determination, and it would continue to give its support to entirely endorse draft resolution A/C.4/L.ll22/Rev.2 and that end. had preferred to abstain in the voting. He nevertheless took the opportunity to reaffirm his Government's fervent wish 65. Mr. LASSE (Trinidad and Tobago) said that his to see Djibouti accede peacefully to independence in delegation had abstained with the greatest reluctance in the accordance with the wishes of its population. vote on draft resolution A/C.4/L.ll22/Rev.2. Its absten­ tion did not, however, mean that his country was aban­ 58. Mr. HARRY (Australia) said that his delegation, like doning the firm stand it had always taken on the right of the delegations of New Zealand and Sweden, had viewed self-determination of peoples. Colonialist claims to the the draft resolution as a compromise text, which it had Territory should not prevail over the wishes of the intended to support, since its main aim was to accelerate population. His delegation accordingly regretted that the the Territory's accession to independence. However, that draft resolution, as submitted, had not been approved by all hope had not been fulfilled, and his delegation had had to the parties concerned. It was in no way opposed to the abstain. draft resolution itself and would continue to support the application of the principle of self-determination to the 59. He had some reservations about the references in population of Djibouti; he hoped that the parties concerned paragraphs 2 and 4 to the details of the decolonization would reach a compromise, as his delegation could then process. vote in favour of the draft resolution at the plenary meeting of the Assembly. 60. Ms. MOYLAN (Ireland) said that since the time of its vote in favour of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) 66. Mr. BERGH JOHANSEN (Norway) said that his IS years earlier, her delegation had always made clear its delegation had voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.4/ firm commitment to the goal of decolonization and L.l122/Rev.2, as it supported the underlying principle of self-determination for all peoples. In keeping with that that document. However, like some other delegations, it tradition, it unreservedly upheld the right of the people of still had reservations, particularly concerning the wording Djibouti to self-determination and full independence, if of paragraphs 3 and 4. Furthermore, when deciding how to that was their expressed desire. In that connex.ion, her vote, his delegation had not expected that one of the delegation welcomed the new commitment of the French parties concerned would withdraw its support for the draft Government to end its opposition to the independence of resolution. Djibouti, if the people of the Territory so desired. Moreover, a number of pre-conditions relating to the 67. Ms. HOLZER (Austria) said that, despite certain internal and external situation of the Territory had been doubts concerning paragraphs 2 and 4, she would have met. She also welcomed the commitment of the Govern­ voted in favour of the draft resolution if the parties ments of Somalia and Ethiopia to the principles of concerned had been in agreement. She regretted that independence and territorial integrity for the Territory. Somalia and Ethiopia had been unable to agree on a text, and she had reluctantly had to abstain in the vote. 61. However, her delegation felt that the draft resolution Nevertheless, the fundamental aims of the draft resolution not only ignored the new French initiative, but, calling as it had her delegation's unqualified support, and it hoped that did for immediate and unconditional independence and the delegations concerned would reach a compromise, as it specifying pre-conditions for that process, also failed to would then feel able to vote in fa·vour of the draft take adequate account of the real difficulties facing the resolution at the plenary meeting of the Assembly. Territory and the need of the French Government to consult the inhabitants of Djibouti and organize its with­ 68. Mr. DE ROSENZWEIG DIAZ (Mexico) said that he drawal in the best possible conditions. regretted that the parties concerned had displayed no spirit 2183rd meeting- 5 December 1975 387 of conciliation and had not reached agreement. His delega­ violent protests and demonstrations. Surprisingly, the tion had voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.4/L.l122/ Ethiopian representative had dismissed those issues as Rev.2, in keeping with its traditional support for decolo­ secondary questions. nization within the framework of the principles of the United Nations. 75. Any examination of the records of the debate on French Somaliland, whether in the Special Committee, the 69. Mr. ROBINSON (Guyana) said that his delegation had General Assembly or even OAU, would show that Ethiopia always supported the right of colonial peoples to self­ had always remained not only passive but apologetic in determination and independence, and would continue to do favour of France whenever the latter was to be denounced so. He would have preferred the parties concerned to agree for the political repression which had been French Somali­ upon a compromise text, and did not want his abstention land's long and bitter experience. Ethiopia was not, and to be seen as a vote against the draft resolution, since his never had been, concerned with the welfare of the delegation attached great importance to the legitimate Territory, nor had it supported unequivocally and sincerely aspirations of colonial peoples and to the fundamental the true aspirations of the people. Its interest in French principles which were at stake. He was well aware of the Somaliland had been, and remained, exclusively mercenary problems which had faced the drafting group, and it was his and materialistic. Its concern had been centred solely on fervent hope that the parties concerned would reach a the port and the railway. As one of Ethiopia's former compromise which would allow his country to vote in Ministers for Foreign Affairs had put it bluntly, the port favour of the draft resolution at the plenary meeting of the and the railway were the lungs of Ethiopia and any Assembly. interference in their operation would be a cause for war.

70. Mrs. ADENAUER (Honduras) said that if it had been 76. It had been an unparallelled and somewhat sad present during the vote, her delegation would have ab­ experience at the 2172nd meeting to hear an African stained. delegation, Ethiopia, defend, as usual, the repressive pol­ icies of a colonial Power, the French authorities in French 71. Mr. HUSSEIN (S;>malia), speaking in exercise of the Somaliland. The Ethiopian representative had conveniently right of reply, said that, in his statement before the ignored the testimony of the then Minister of the Interior Committee at its 2172nd meeting, the representative of for the Territory-Mr. Ahmed Dini-who had addressed the Ethiopia had attempted to confuse the clear-cut issue of Committee at its 2168th meeting. Mr. Dini had made it self-determination and independence for French Somaliland clear that his party, which had been in power at the time, by injecting into the debate not only matters of an had protested against the erection of barricades, and had extraneous nature but matters which were calculated to confirmed not only the electoral frauds but also the divert the attention of delegations from the basic issues arbitrary expulsion of over 30,000 of the indigenous involved. population.

72. In his own statement at the 2170th meeting, he had 77. Before proceeding to his next point, he touched on endeavoured to explain to the Committee the Somali the issue raised by the Ethiopian representative at the Government's assessment of the situation, the priorities for 2168th meeting concerning the use of the term "Somalis" action and the role which the United Nations should play in for "Issas". It would be recalled that that matter had been giving tangible expression to the responsibilities assumed raised by the Ethiopian representative when questioning for the Territory under the Charter and in conformity with Mr. Ahmed Dini in the Committee at the same meeting. General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). 78. While, of course, it was the right and privilege of any 73. What were those priorities? In the Somali view, the delegation to put questions to petitioners and representa­ people of the Territory must be assured of their right to tives of liberation movements who might appear before the self-determination and independence. The right of self­ Committee, the perfidy and ill intention which had determination must be freely expressed and exercised by characterized the questions that the Ethiopian representa­ the indigenous inhabitants of the Territory on the basis of tive had seen fit to put to Mr. Dini were beyond any doubt. universal adult suffrage and with full respect for funda­ It was, however, gratifying that the underlying reasons for mental human rights and freedoms. those questions had been well understood by Mr. Dini, who had not hesitated to give them the answers they really 74. His statement to the Committee had addressed itself deserved. to those vital questions and had shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that French policy towards the Territory over 79. The Ethiopian representative had been surprised to the years had been designed to frustrate the wishes of the hear Mr. Dini describe the Territory as being "inhabited people, and to produce a climate of fear ?!ld repression. For by ... 'the Afars and the Somalis", and had wondered what the people of French Somaliland, issues such as disen­ had happened to the Issas. He himself would have thought franchisement, electoral misconduct, barbed wire fencing, that the Ethiopian representative, being a neighbour of political victimization by the French authorities, expulsions French Somaliland, would have known that the term and arbitrary arrests constituted the foremost oMtacles to "Issas" was a tribal appellation and that it was a part of the the normalization of the political life of the Territory. Somali ethnic group. Mr. Ahmed Dini, who was himself a While these obstacles remained, all other considerations member of the Afar ethnic group, had emphasized the affecting the Territory were superfluous and meaningless. frivolity of the question when he had replied that there was That had been made clear by petitioners from the Territory no difference between Issas and Somalis and to say that over the years and had found expression in the form of there was would be absurd. Of course, for reasons of 388 General Assembly - Thirtieth Session - Fourth Committee self-interest, the Ethiopian Government had played the "Ethiopia believes that the future destiny of this same game as France in attempting to drive wedges between Territory should be based on the free choice of the the two ethnic groups in the Territory. As Mr. Ahmed Dini people. If independence is their choice, Ethiopia will had explained to the Ethiopian representative, it was no accept that, and will be happy to live with an indepen­ more appropriate to use tribal names for the inhabitants of dent neighbour whose sovereignty will be assured by its the Territory than it would be to divide France into membership in the Organization of African Unity. Since territories of Bretons, Basques, Normans and so forth. How history, geography and continuous historical interaction true that was of Ethiopia! To Mr. Ahmed Dini, as to the have created a mutuality of interests between this majority of the people of French Somaliland, it was a Territory and Ethiopia, the preservation of which will no positive advantage that his country had only two ethnic doubt redound in increasing measure to the benefit of groups. both, Ethiopia has every confidence that an independent State in this vital part of the Horn of Africa will recognize 80. His second point concerned Somalia's attitude towards her vital interests." the realization of an independent French Somaliland. The Ethiopian representative, for reasons relating to Ethiopia's 82. Now that the distinguished representatives had before own interests elsewhere, had endeavoured to cast doubt on them the statements made by the Heads of State of Somalia the Somali position. He again stated that Somalia's policies and Ethiopia at Kampala on French Somaliland, he would in that respect had been consistent throughout and had leave it to their judgement which of the two statements was always been in full support of the United Nations Charter more precise, more categorical and more direct, and which and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly. He was more subtly condition-oriented and pregnant with could quote no hig'ter or better authority for a clear and ambiguity. unequivocal statement of the position of the Somali Democratic Republic on its policy towards French Somali­ 83. For the information of the Committee, he also land (Djibouti) than the statement made by the President pointed out that, even prior to the statement made by the of Somalia, General Mohamed Siad Barre, in the course of President of Somalia which he had just quoted, and as far his address to the Assembly of Heads of State and back as 21 February 1967, on the very eve of the so-called Government at OAU at Kampala in July 1975. He had referendum in French Somaliland, the Somali Government mentioned that statement in general terms in the course of had addressed a letter to the Government of Ethiopia in his statement to the Committee at the 2170th meeting. which the Government of Somalia had stated, among other Since the Ethiopian representative had seen fit to make a things: "big issue" of it he would quote what the President had actually stated: "The Somali Republic and Ethiopia, as the neighbours of French Somaliland, have a special role of responsibility "The Somali Democratic Republic harbours no ambi­ to play in events concerning that Territory. The Somali tions for the annexation of that Territory and desires Government proposes, therefore, that their respective only its full and unconditional independence. It is solely countries should issue a joint statement pledging them­ interested in the liquidation of colonialism from French selves fully to support and respect an independent French Somaliland and the restoration of the legitimate and Somaliland. Such an accord would do much to dispel the inalienable right of the people of that Territory to decide unfortunate suspicion and mistrust which exists regarding their ultimate destiny independently in a free and each other's intentions towards that Territory and it democratic manner devoid of any pressure or interference would be construed by world opinion, especially in from any quarter or from any country no matter what Africa, as a genuine desire by both Governments to vital interest that country may claim to have in shaping strengthen African solidarity and unity." the future of French Somaliland." He reminded the Committee that that letter was dated 21 He stressed the words "no matter what vital interest that February 1967. country may claim to have". 84. As usual, the Ethiopian Government had turned a deaf 81. For the sake of easy comparison, he would like to read ear to that proposal, obviously in accordance with the out also the following statement made by the Chairman of wishes of France. The Ethiopian representative's statement the Provisional Military Administrative Council of Ethiopia had gone beyond the question of French Somaliland when as referred to in the statement delivered in the Committee he had challenged the good faith of the Somali Government by the Ethiopian representative at the 2172nd meeting: by describing the Somali delegation's statement as "smoke­ screens to conceal the central design of territorial ambition "The Provisional Military Government does not believe as embodied in [Somalia's] Constitution". that Ethiopia's policy poses any difficulty to the indepen­ dence of the Territory of the Afars and the Issas. 85. It was a fact that the Somali nation, like many other Whatever historical rights Ethiopia might have had in this nations of the world, was a divided nation. That such a area she recognizes that these are overridden by the right division had taken place at the turn of the century, during of the people 'to . . . independence. If there is any what was known as the "scramble for Africa" by European difficulty with regard to its independence, it should be colonialists, was another unquestionable historical fact. looked for elsewhere. I should like to make it clear that That Ethiopia, as a result of such a scramble for coloniza­ Ethiopia does not have any legal act or legislation on its tion and territorial aggrandizement, had seized the "lion's books asserting any claim to the Territory. We wonder share" in collusion with France, Britain and Italy was also whether all countries in the region can say the same. an indisputable historical fact. 2183rd meeting - S December 1975 389 86. In order to substanaate what he had just said, he "In the process, two, he [King Menelik II] was year by would like to make a few remarks of a historical nature. year expanding his Kingdom eastwards, southwards and westwards, at the expense of the Mar and Somali of 87. The French poet and arms dealer, ·Arthur Rimbaud, Harar and the Ogaden. . . . Menelik II of Ethiopia is commonly regarded by European historians ..., as a who had arrived at Ankobar on 6 February 1887, had scrambler for Mrica who happened to be an discovered that "from Harar, it was ... eight or nine days' 1 journey to the Hawash River, the boundary of Menelik's Mrican ...". Kingdom". That drove home the fact that no part of Somali territory had ever been part of Abyssinia before the 93. It had been against that factual background and colonial partition. because of the defeat of Italy by Ethiopia at the Battle of Adowa in 1896 that it had not been possible"to contain 88. It had been the arrival of the European Powers after Emperor Menelik's avowed policy of territorial aggrandize­ the Conference of Berlin of 1884/1885, on the coast of ment. what was then known as the Hom of Mrica, that had speeded up the massive armament of what had at that time 94. With Italy defeated, Great Britain, which was mill· been known as Abyssinia and had enabled it to go all out in tarily weak in the Hom of Africa and preoccupied with the the execution of its expansionist policy. That expansionist struggle with the Dervishes in the Sudan, had been forced policy, initiated aggressively by King Menelik II of Shoa in to make concessions by entering, with Ethiopia, into the the 1880s, had in the course of the following 20 years Treaty concerning Frontiers of the British Protectorate on converted the tiny Abyssinian Kingdom into a rambling the Somali Coast, signed at Addis Ababa on 14 May 1897. Ethiopian Empire. In the words of Enid Starkie: "As far as the nature of the trade was concerned, one can say without exaggeration that the chief imports into the interior of 95. For reasons almost identical to those he had just Abyssinia through the Italian and French ports were arms stated, Italy had also had to yield to the same pressure by concluding the 1908 Convention between Somalia and and ammunition". Eritrea [Italian possessions] and Ethiopia, by virtue of which the Somali nation had unfortunately been dis­ 89. On 16 September 1890, Ethiopia, then known as membered. Abyssinia, had acceded to the General Act of Brussels, one aim of which had been to prevent fire-arms falling into the hands of Mricans. Through its accession to that Act, 96. He had hoped that the Committee could have debated however, Abyssinia had been entitled to the unrestricted the question of French Somaliland without having to refer importation and possession of fire-arms. It had gained that to matters which concerned solely Somalia and Ethiopia. In exceptional privilege within the framework of the great fact, while his own statement in the Committee had been design of the "scramble for Africa" of European coloniza­ directed towards the problems facing French Somaliland tion. and their solution, the statement made by the Ethiopian representative had been calculated to use the issue of 90. In addition to the supply of such a huge quantity of French Somaliland as a means of exacting political gains on armaments, Abyssinia had never failed to take advantage of the substance of the long-standing territorial dispute be­ its geographical position as well as of its religious beliefs. To tween Somalia and Ethiopia. His own delegation had no attract the support and sympathy of the European Powers, intention of linking the two issues. The Somali Government it had described itself as a "Christian island in an ocean of whole-heartedly supported the independence of French pagans and Moslem3". For centuries, it had exploited and Somaliland and would continue to give the people of that capitalized quite successfully on those two sensationalist Territory all necessary support so that their legitimate factors. He had every reason to believe that that was still aspiration to full independence would be realized. part of the game even now. 97. With regard to Somalia's territorial dispute with 91. He then quoted from the notorious "circular letter" Ethiopia, Somalia had always expressed both readiness and which King Menelik II had addressed to Great Britain, willingness to enter into negoijations with Ethiopia. In fact, France, Germany, Italy and Russia on 10 April 1891. At the matter was currently on the agenda of the OAU the time, King Menelik had desired to make known to Assembly of Heads of State and Government, where it had various European Powers his ambition for territorial gain, been entrusted to an Ad Hoc Committee composed of taking advantage of competition among the Europeans, distinguished Heads of State to mediate and bring about a who were vying for as much influence as possible in the peaceful settlement. Hom of Mrica. Menelik had said:

"If Powers at a distance come forward to partition 98. His delegation therefore regretted that the Ethiopian Mrica between them, I do not intend to be an indifferent representative had had to raise that question, which had no spectator. As the Almighty has protected Ethiopia up to relevance whatsoever to the question under debate, and had this date I am confident that He will continue to protect therefore been, in the view of his delegation, not only and increase her borders in the future." untimely and provocative but also and, above all, counter­ productive. 92. In illustration of that ambition, he quoted from a history of Mrica written by Roland Oliver and J.D. Fage, l A ShOI't History ofAfrica (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Penguin which, referring to that particular point, said, inter alia: Books Ltd, 1962), p. 179. 390 General AJsembly - Thirtieth Seldon - Fourth Committee 99. Having made those remarks in reply to the accusations Nations be associated actively and closely with the final unfairly directed against his Government, he wished to decolonization processes in the Territory. point out that the whole purpose of his statement concerned the action to be taken by the United Nations to put an end to the colonial situation. The Ethiopian QUESTION OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (MAL­ VINAS) AND QUESTION OF ANTIGUA, DOMINICA, representative's statement, in conformity with the cus­ ST. K.ITT8-NEVI8-ANGUILLA, ST. LUCIA AND ST. tomary practice of his delegation on French Somaliland, VINCENT had advanced no proposals of substance, nor had he expressed concern at the unjust c.onditions prevailing in the 100. The CHAIRMAN drew the attention of the Com­ Territory. He assumed that that kind of window-dressing mittee to certain Territories covered by agenda item 23 had been carried out with the consent of France. His only which it had not been able to study in detail. She pointed proposal had been to express regret that France had not out that the Special Committee had decided to consider the furnished information on the Territory in compliance with question of those Territories, namely, the Falkland Islands Article 73 e of the Charter. His country felt that the (Malvinas) and Antigua, Dominica, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Committee had gone beyond that stage. It had been St. Lucia and St Vincent, at its meetings in 1976, subject provided with the latest information on the Territory by a to any directives which the General Assembly might give in distinguished group of petitioners and the United Nations that connexion(see A/10023/Add.S (part III), chap. XXIX, had over the years collected valuable information from para. 5, and chap. XXXI, para. 4). · various sources on the question. The facts of the situation were clear to all those who wished to see: the United 101. If there were no objections, she would take it that Nations must support the demand made by the people of the Committee recommended the General Assembly to French Somaliland, by OAU, and by the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries that defer its discussion of those Territories until its thirty-fmt session. the Territory should be accorded immediate and uncondi­ tional independence, as the President of Somalia had said in the statement from which he had quoted at the current It was so decided. meeting, and that a constitutional conference, composed not only of representatives selected by France through the QUESTION OF GIBRALTAR: CONSIDERATION undemocratic and unjust ways and means with which all OF DRAFT CONSENSUS were familiar, but also representatives of all political parties and other organizations which enjoyed the confidence of 102. The CHAIRMAN told the Committee that the draft the people, should be convened without delay and without consensus on Gibraltar would be distributed at the fol­ discrimination so that independence might be achieved in lowing meeting. unity and solidarity. Moreover, it was essential that the appropriate political climate be created and that the United The meeting rose at 1.25 p.m.

2184th •eeting

Friday, 5 December 1975, at 3.45 p.m.

Chairman: Mrs. Famah JOKA-BANGURA (Sierra Leone).

A/C.4/SR.2184

AGENDA ITEM 23 QUESTION OF FRENCH SOMALILAND: CONSID­ ERATION OF DRAFT RESOLUTIONS (concluded) Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Terri­ 2. Mr. V ARGAS-SABORIO (Costa Rica) said that if his tories not covered under other agenda items) (concluded) delegation had been present during the vote on draft (A/10023 (parts I, II and IV), A/10023/Add.6 (parts I resolution A/C .4/L.1122/Rev .2 on the question of French and II), A/10023/Add.S (part III), A/C.4/804, A/C.4/ Somaliland it would have voted in favour of it. L.ll22/Rev.2, A/C.4/L.l128) QUESTION OF FRENCH SOMALILAND: STATEMENTS QUESTION OF GIBRALTAR: CONSIDERATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF EmiOPIA AND OF DRAFT CONSENSUS (concluded) SOMALIA IN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF REPLY•

1. The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the text of· the 3. Mr. IBRAHIM (Ethiopia) said that first of all he wished draft consensus on Gibraltar (A/C.4/L.1228) and said that, to thank the representative of Somalia for his elucidation of if she heard no objection, she would take it that the • The statements on the question of French Somaliland made at Committee adopted it without objection. this meeting by the representatives of Ethiopia and Somalia are reproduced in exten10 in accordance with the decision taken by the It was so decided. Committee at its 2172nd meeting.