[ 1968 ] Part 1 Sec 3 Chapter 2 The Situation with Regard ...

702 TRUST AND NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES

OTHER DOCUMENTSS/8713. Report of Trusteeship Council to Security

Council on Trust Territory of Pacific Islands, cov-ering period 1 July 1967-19 June 1968.

A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee on Situ-ation with regard to Implementation of Declarationon Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries

and Peoples (covering its work during 1968), Chap-ter XXII.

A/7202. Report of Security Council to General Assem-bly, 16 July 1967-15 July 1968, Chapter 18.

A/7204. Report of Trusteeship Council to GeneralAssembly, 1 July 1967-19 June 1968, part I, Chap-ters I, II, V, VI.

CHAPTER II

THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OFTHE DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE

TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES

During 1968, the General Assembly's 24-mem-ber Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Declara-tion on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples continued todischarge its mandate as set forth by the Gen-eral Assembly, and to seek suitable means forthe immediate and full implementation of theDeclaration in territories which had not yetattained independence.

The Special Committee held 79 plenary meet-ings between 1 February and 5 December 1968,during which it examined and made recom-mendations oh the implementation of the De-claration with respect to individual territoriesand other related questions.

In this chapter, an account is given of: theSpecial Committee's work in general during

1968; the consideration of its report by theGeneral Assembly; and related action by otherUnited Nations bodies. Following that, detailsare given of the Special Committee's and theGeneral Assembly's consideration of, and re-commendations on, individual territories.

Details of the action taken in 1968 by theGeneral Assembly, the Special Committee ofTwenty-four and other bodies on matters con-cerning Southern Rhodesia, Namibia,1 the ter-ritories under Portuguese administration andOman will be found in other chapters (see pp.125-58, 766-90, 791-804 and 296-97).

1 On 12 June 1968, with the adoption of resolution2372(XXII), the General Assembly proclaimed thatthe territory of South West Africa should henceforthbe known as Namibia.

GENERAL ASPECTS

SYSTEM OF EXAMINATIONDuring 1968, the General Assembly's 24-

member Special Committee on the Situationwith regard to the Implementation of the De-claration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples2 continued touse the methods of work developed in preced-ing years and endorsed by the General As-sembly.

Under this procedure, it examined specialquestions relating to the implementation of theDeclaration, as well as its implementation inindividual territories, the order of priority being

decided on the basis of recommendations madeby its Working Group.

To assist in its examination of conditionsin each territory, the Special Committee nor-mally has before it an information paper pre-pared by the United Nations Secretariat de-scribing recent political and constitutional devel-opments as well as current economic, socialand educational conditions. This information isderived from published sources and, in relevant

2 See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50, text of resolution1514(XV), for details about Declaration.

DECLARATION ON INDEPENDENCE FOR COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES 703cases, from the information transmitted by ad-ministering powers under Article 73e of theUnited Nations Charter.3

In addition, the Special Committee requeststhe administering powers to submit informa-tion on political and constitutional develop-ments in the territories they administer. TheCommittee hears statements from the admin-istering powers, inviting those which are notmembers of the Committee to participate in itsexamination of the territories concerned. Peti-tions are circulated and the Committee maydecide to hear petitioners at its meetings. (Re-servations concerning these proceedings havebeen expressed by the United Kingdom and theUnited States.)

At the conclusion of its examination of thesituation in the particular territory concerned,the Special Committee adopts its recommenda-tions in the form of a consensus formulatedby its Chairman or by means of a resolutionwhich is adopted by vote. The Special Com-mittee is empowered by the General Assemblyto send out visiting missions to territories inco-operation with administering powers. (Thisprocedure has also been the subject of re-servations expressed in the Special Committeeby the United Kingdom and the United States.)The Special Committee establishes sub-com-mittees whenever it considers them necessary.

Each year, the Special Committee adopts areport to the General Assembly which includesseparate chapters on the situation in each ter-ritory or group of territories which it has con-sidered, as well as on special questions whichit has decided to take up separately. It is onthe basis of this report that the Assembly con-siders the implementation of the Declarationin general and with respect to individual ter-ritories.

IMPLEMENTATION OF DECLARATION

CONSIDERATION BY

SPECIAL COMMITTEE

During 1968, the Special Committee con-sidered general aspects of the implementationof the Declaration on the Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoplesand also the implementation of the Declara-tion with respect to the following territories:

Southern Rhodesia, Namibia, territories underPortuguese administration, Equatorial Guinea,Swaziland, Mauritius, Seychelles, St. Helena,Ifni and Spanish Sahara, Gibraltar, FrenchSomaliland,4 Fiji, Oman, Gilbert and ElliceIslands, Pitcairn, Solomon Islands, Niue, Toke-lau Islands, New Hebrides, Guam, AmericanSamoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Is-lands, Papua and the Trust Territory of NewGuinea, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Brunei,Hong Kong, Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St.Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent,United States Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Baha-mas, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Is-lands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands,Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and British Hon-duras.

The Special Committee also carried outspecific tasks entrusted to it by the General As-sembly or arising from its own previous deci-sions. It continued to study the activities offoreign economic and other interests in South-ern Rhodesia, Namibia and territories underPortuguese administration and all other ter-ritories under colonial domination, and effortsto eliminate colonialism, apartheid and racialdiscrimination in southern Africa (see below,pp. 722-25). The Committee continued itsstudy of military activities and arrangements bycolonial powers in territories under their ad-ministration; examined the compliance of Mem-ber States with the Declaration and other re-levant resolutions on the question of decoloniza-tion, particularly those relating to SouthernRhodesia, Namibia5 and the territories underPortuguese administration; examined the ques-tion of the implementation of the Declarationby the specialized agencies and international in-stitutions associated with the United Nations;and considered the question of sending visitingmissions to the territories (see under separatesub-topics below, pp. 705-09, 709-12, 712-13 and713-14).

3 For text of Article 73e of the Charter, seeAPPENDIX II.

4 The new designation of the territory is "FrenchTerritory of the Afars and the Issas." This designation

was introduced in United Nations terminology as from15 April 1968, at the request of the administeringpower.

5 See footnote 1.


In addition, the Special Committee continuedto study the information on non-self-governingterritories transmitted under Article 73e of theCharter (see below, pp. 805-06).

In its report to the twenty-third session ofthe General Assembly, the Special Committeenoted the attainment of independence byEquatorial Guinea, Mauritius, Nauru andSwaziland. It also noted that some constitu-tional progress had taken place in a few ofthe colonial territories but that complete andeffective implementation of the Declaration onthe granting of independence was nowhere nearrealization in a large number of territories.Over 25 million people had yet to be giventhe opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination and independence. Many terri-tories still remained under harsh forms ofcolonial rule, and some of them had little pros-pect of emancipation in the foreseeable future.The administering powers still persisted in theirrefusal to permit the exercise of self-determina-tion, particularly in the territories in southernAfrica.

Some members of the Special Committeestressed the grave consequences of an ententewhich they said existed between the Govern-ments of South Africa and Portugal and theillegal racist minority régime in Southern Rho-desia. With the assistance of their main trad-ing partners and of foreign economic and otherinterests, these authorities were perpetuatingundemocratic minority régimes in southernAfrica. The problems of Southern Rhodesia,Namibia and the territories under Portugueseadministration were particularly stressed in thedeliberations of the Committee. In a numberof cases, the Committee made concrete sug-gestions to the Security Council regarding de-velopments which, it felt, might threaten in-ternational peace and security.

The Working Group of the Special Com-mittee continued to make recommendations onthe organization of work, including the orderof examination of individual territories. TheSub-Committee on Petitions, in 1968, consider-ed 190 communications, 187 of which it de-cided to circulate as petitions. These petitionsincluded 13 requests for hearings which the Sub-Committee recommended to the Special Com-mittee for approval. Sub-Committees I, II and

III continued their work with the same termsof reference as before, namely: Sub-Commit-tees II and III were responsible for consider-ing and making recommendations to the SpecialCommittee on territories in the Pacific andCaribbean areas, respectively, while Sub-Com-mittee I was responsible for the Seychelles andSt. Helena and for special economic and militarystudies. The Special Committee also maintainedits Sub-Committees on Fiji and Oman. TheCommittee adopted a recommendation by itsWorking Group aiming at the organization ofa special programme of activities in 1970 inconnexion with the tenth anniversary of theadoption of the Declaration on the grantingof independence, as well as the twenty-fifthanniversary of the establishment of the UnitedNations.

The Special Committee paid particular at-tention to the small territories. While recogniz-ing the peculiar problems of these territories,it noted with regret that the measures neces-sary to implement the Declaration had notbeen taken by the powers concerned. Such con-stitutional progress as had taken place in someof the territories had often resulted only inthe establishment of local authorities withstrictly circumscribed powers. The slow pro-gress towards self-determination was due partlyto the failure of the administering powers tomake the people sufficiently aware of the ap-plicability of the Declaration.

The Special Committee also expressed regretconcerning the refusal of the administeringpowers in some of the territories in the Carib-bean area to co-operate with the Committeefor the reason, rejected by the majority of themembers, that those territories had freely at-tained a full measure of self-government. Onceagain the Committee requested the administer-ing powers concerned to enable the peoples ofthe small territories to exercise without delay,in complete freedom and in full knowledge ofthe possibilities open to them, their right to self-determination and to pursue without hindrancetheir economic and social development. It re-iterated its belief that the United Nationsshould be enabled to participate actively inthe processes involved in the exercise by thesepeoples of their right to self-determination. TheCommittee was also conscious of the need to

DECLARATION ON INDEPENDENCE FOR COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES 705

promote equitable social, educational and eco-nomic development, in the interests and withthe full participation of the indigenous popula-tion and hot, as had been the case in severalterritories, to the benefit, for the most part,of foreign economic interests. The Committeedecided to initiate in 1969, with the assistanceof the Secretary-General, a study of the ques-tion of small territories in accordance with Gen-eral Assembly resolution 2326(XXII) of 16December 1967.6

The importance of giving widespread andcontinuous publicity to the efforts of the UnitedNations in the field of decolonization was re-cognized by the Special Committee, and itgave consideration to the contribution whichthe Secretary-General could make through theuse of all the information media at his dis-posal. To that end, it submitted suggestions tothe Secretary-General with a view to assistinghim in the preparation of the necessary materialand ensuring its purposeful and co-ordinateddistribution.

The Special Committee continued to con-sider the list of territories to which the De-claration on the granting of independence wasapplicable and on 4 November 1968 it de-cided, by a vote of 10 to 7, with 6 abstentions,to defer consideration of a recommendation byits Working Group that the Comoro Archipelagobe included in the list.

Contact with other organs of the UnitedNations continued to be maintained by theSpecial Committee. In its resolution of 16 De-cember 1967, the General Assembly had re-quested the Special Committee to make concretesuggestions to assist the Security Council inconsidering appropriate measures under theUnited Nations Charter with regard to develop-ments in colonial territories which were likelyto threaten international peace and security. Inaccordance with this request, the Committeeapproved a number of decisions concerning theillegal trial by the South African Governmentof South West Africans (Namibians) (see sec-tion below on trial of Namibians, pp. 767-73) ;the situation in Southern Rhodesia (see pp.141-44) ; and the increased threat posed bythe situation in the territories under Portuguesedomination, as well as the consequence of theviolations by Portugal of the territorial integrity

and sovereignty of the neighbouring independ-ent African States (see pp. 791-95).

The Special Committee also maintained closecontact with the Trusteeship Council, the Eco-nomic and Social Council (see below, p. 715),the Special Committee on the Policies ofApartheid of the Government of the Republicof South Africa, the United Nations Councilfor Namibia and the Commission on HumanRights. A delegation of the Special Committeetook part in the International Conference onHuman Rights held in Teheran, Iran, from 22April to 13 May 1968 (see below, pp. 714-15).

MILITARY ACTIVITIESAND ARRANGEMENTS

During 1968, the Special Committee re-quested its Sub-Committee I to continue tostudy the question of military activities andarrangements by colonial powers in territoriesunder their administration which might be im-peding the implementation of the Declarationon the granting of independence. In its report,the Sub-Committee reached a number of con-clusions and recommendations which wereadopted by the Special Committee on 3 Oc-tober 1968.

The Sub-Committee stated that it had foundconclusive evidence that military activities andarrangements by colonial powers in the terri-tories, far from benefiting the colonial peoplesconcerned, constituted one of the most seriousimpediments to the implementation of the De-claration on the granting of independence andin several cases posed a grave and ever increas-ing threat to international peace and security.In territories with rich economic resources andsizable populations, military force had tradi-tionally gone hand in hand with economic ex-ploitation; in each territory the colonial powerhad created a network of forts, or militarystrong-points, for the purpose of subjugatingthe people and providing protection for theforeign economic interests which were exploit-ing the territory's resources.

Later, the Sub-Committee report continued,these same military forces had been used tosuppress the emergent national liberation move-

6 See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 643-45, for text of resolu-tion 2326 (XXII).


merits. Thus, in Namibia, Southern Rhodesiaand territories in Africa under Portuguese con-trol, the colonial régimes were engaged in ever-increasing military activities aimed at denyingby force the legitimate aspirations of the peopleto freedom and independence. The Govern-ment of South Africa continued to defy theauthority of the United Nations and had in-tensified its military preparations in order tomaintain its illegal presence in Namibia. InMozambique, Angola and Guinea, called Por-tuguese Guinea, the Portuguese authorities werewaging a war of colonial repression on an ever-increasing scale against the liberation move-ments. Portugal had deployed an army of be-tween 120,000 and 150,000 troops in the ter-ritories under its control and had constructeda network of over 400 airfields in Angola andnearly 300 airfields in Mozambique from whichit carried out military operations against theliberation movements.

The Sub-Committee believed that one ofthe main reasons that Portugal had intensifiedmilitary activities and arrangements in Angola,Mozambique and Guinea was the close mili-tary co-operation between Portugal and itsNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)military allies. It was within the frameworkof this bloc that the military contingents ofPortugal, which that country used in its de-vastating war against the peoples of those ter-ritories, were trained.

Similarly, in Southern Rhodesia, the illegalracist minority régime was increasing its mili-tary activities against African nationalists andhad succeeded in obtaining weapons and mili-tary equipment despite the embargo imposedby the Security Council in November 1965.

There was, said the Sub-Committee, increas-ing co-operation between the Governments ofSouth Africa and Portugal and the illegal racistminority régime in Southern Rhodesia; theyhad formed a military entente and their repre-sentatives met regularly to exchange informa-tion and draw up joint plans for military activi-ties against the liberation movements in Africa.

The Sub-Committee viewed these develop-ments with the greatest concern. The con-tinuing escalation of armed repression, the in-tensification of military preparation and thecollusion between South Africa, Portugal and

the illegal racist minority régime in SouthernRhodesia had created a grave and ever-increas-ing threat to the security of neighbouring inde-pendent States and to international peace andsecurity in general.

In the smaller colonial territories the Sub-Committee found that the military activitiesof the colonial powers also posed a seriousdanger. Recent events had shown that thesepowers and their allies were attaching increas-ing strategic importance to the small colonialterritories, especially islands, and the trend wastowards expanding military bases and con-structing additional ones, rather than eliminat-ing them. In the Pacific Ocean, one of thelargest United States bases was on Guam, withan important naval base at Apra Harbour, anaval air station at Agana and the AndersonAir Force Base, which was used by the UnitedStates Strategic Air Command as a staging pointfor bombing missions over South-East Asia.In addition, the territory was used as a basefor Polaris submarines patrolling in Asianwaters. The Trust Territory of the Pacific Is-lands was also used by the administering powerfor military staging and supply purposes. Anumber of military installations already existedin the Territory and, according to informationavailable to the Sub-Committee, the admin-istering power intended to establish a militaryheadquarters, air and naval bases and facil-ities for stockpiling nuclear weapons on theislands of Saipan and Tinian and for utilizingthe island of Rota for military training andother activities. Similar plans for expanding ex-isting facilities in Eastern Samoa were also re-ported. Elsewhere in the South Pacific, Aus-tralia had included the Trust Territory of NewGuinea in its over-all military plans and had,among other things, constructed some 237 air-fields and landing strips, army barracks andcamps, a marine base at Port Moresby and anaval base on the island of Manus that hadalready been used for South-East Asia TreatyOrganization (SEATO) naval exercises.

The situation in other parts of the worldwas not significantly different, the Sub-Com-mittee found. In the Caribbean, there werenaval and air bases in Bermuda, the UnitedStates Virgin Islands and the Bahamas andsmaller research and satellite-tracking stations


on other islands, such as Grand Turk and An-tigua. In the Indian Ocean, the United King-dom had since 1965 entertained plans for theestablishment of a military staging post in the"British Indian Ocean Territory," which in-cluded islands belonging to the Seychelles. TheUnited Kingdom Government had entered intoan agreement with the Government of theUnited States in 1967 for the joint financingand use of such military staging areas and otherfacilities as might be constructed. In the caseof Gibraltar, the strategic value of the territorywas a principal reason for its continued colonialstatus. This major British military and navalbase controlling entry to the Mediterraneanhad become a NATO base.

The Sub-Committee concluded that strategicmilitary considerations were an important fac-tor in prolonging colonial rule in many partsof the world. The colonial powers and theirallies were increasing military activities andarrangements, as well as expanding existingbases and building new ones. This not onlywas an important factor impeding the processof decolonization, but it inevitably led to in-terference with the economic development ofthe territories concerned by extensively alienat-ing land for military purposes and by drawingthe population away from productive activities.

In the light of these conclusions, the Sub-Committee recommended that the SpecialCommittee should strongly condemn as a crimeagainst humanity, and as a serious threat tointernational peace and security, the wantonuse of military force by colonial powers tosuppress the legitimate aspirations of colonialpeoples to self-determination and independence.

The Sub-Committee further recommendedthat the Special Committee should condemn themilitary entente between South Africa, Por-tugal and the illegal racist minority régimeof Southern Rhodesia—which was aimed atsuppressing by armed force the inalienable rightof the oppressed people of southern Africa toself-determination and independence—andshould call upon all States to withhold all sup-port and assistance, including the supply ofarms and military equipment, to the entente,which ran counter to the interests of interna-tional peace and security.

The Sub-Committee also recommended that

the Special Committee should: express graveconcern at the use of military bases in colonialterritories, especially in Guam and the TrustTerritories, against third parties as contraryto the spirit of the United Nations Charterand a threat to international peace and security;request all States having responsibility for theadministration of colonial and Trust Territoriesto comply unconditionally with the General As-sembly's resolutions requesting all colonialpowers to dismantle their military bases andinstallations in colonial territories and to re-frain from establishing new ones; and requestthe colonial powers to cease forthwith alienat-ing land belonging to the people of the ter-ritories for the construction of military basesand installations and to return such land al-ready alienated to its rightful owners, and alsoto desist from utilizing the economic resourcesand manpower of the territories for the fur-therance of military activities against the legiti-mate interests of the colonial peoples.

In the debate on the Sub-Committee's re-port, Australia, Italy, the United Kingdom andthe United States maintained that the questionwas outside the competence of the Special Com-mittee and that the report contained sweepingand tendentious generalizations for propagandapurposes. The representative of the UnitedStates said that the entire matter of foreignmilitary bases was only part of the over-allproblem of disarmament. The activities of theUnited States in the Trust Territory of thePacific Islands were in strict conformity withArticle 76 of the Charter7 and also with article5 of the Trusteeship Agreement, which en-titled the administering power to establish naval,military and air bases, to erect fortificationsand to station and employ armed forces inthe Territory. There was no valid proof thatthe military activities of the United States inits territories were either an obstacle to self-determination or contrary to the spirit of theUnited Nations Charter. The primary purposeof all United States bases was to defend theterritory concerned against aggression.

The representative of Italy considered thatthe question could best be studied by the Con-

7 For text of Article 76 and other Charter Articlesreferred to herein, see APPENDIX II.


ference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee onDisarmament. The Sub-Committee's report re-flected the interests of certain powers—interestswhich had nothing to do with the problemof decolonization—and gave the impression thatthe Sub-Committee's main concern was to at-tack NATO. The Sub-Committee's conclusionthat one of the main reasons for the intensifica-tion of Portuguese military activities and ar-rangements in Angola, Mozambique and Gui-nea (Bissau) was the close military co-opera-tion between Portugal and its NATO militaryallies arbitrarily assumed that Portugal wouldbe unable to continue its colonial wars unlessit received economic and military aid for thatpurpose from its allies.

The representative of the United Kingdomstated that the recommendations of the Sub-Committee were for the most part sweepinggeneralizations, applied to all countries and allcolonial territories. The purpose of the study,he said, was to serve the propagandist objec-tives of certain members of the Special Com-mittee by methods of distortion and over-state-ment. There was no form of United Kingdommilitary presence whatever in the great major-ity of United Kingdom territories with whichthe Special Committee was concerned. In thesmall number of territories where there wassuch a presence it was primarily for the pur-pose of defending the territory, which wasone of the United Kingdom's obligations asadministering power, and in no way impededdecolonization. The Sub-Committee had ignoredthe fact that a military presence often pro-vided a considerable source of local employ-ment and could contribute to an improvementin local prosperity and living standards.

The representative of Australia consideredthat the Sub-Committee's conclusions and re-commendations overlooked the essential aspectof the matter, namely, the legitimate right ofthe indigenous populations to defence againstforeign aggression. Article 73 of the UnitedNations Charter made no reference to militaryinformation to be transmitted by the admin-istering powers. The defence arrangements ofAustralia in the territories under its adminis-tration were entirely consistent with its obliga-tions and rights under the Charter. The reportof the Sub-Committee ignored the fact that

the Pacific Islands Regiment was the nucleusof a national defence force for New Guinea andthat naval personnel stationed at Manus rep-resented the nucleus of a future naval forcefor the defence of the Territory. The implica-tion in the report that the airfields were formilitary use was incorrect, as many regionswere inaccessible by surface transport and manyof the airfields were privately owned.

Other members of the Special Committeedefended the report and drew attention to thefact that the General Assembly, in its resolu-tion adopted on 16 December 1967,8 had giventhe Committee a specific mandate to studymilitary activities by colonial powers. Yugo-slavia noted that Portugal was spending $280million, or half its annual budget, on militaryactivities, and that NATO assistance enabledit to do so. Some of the smaller territories, likeGuam, were being reduced to the condition ofmilitary bases. The delegations criticizing thereport had not denied that colonial powersand racist régimes in southern Africa wereincreasing their military activities aimed atthwarting the legitimate aspirations of thepeoples of that region.

The representative of Syria said that experi-ence had shown that military bases offered noadvantages to the indigenous inhabitants ofcolonial territories. If the colonial powers real-ly had such concern for objectivity, they shouldprovide the Special Committee with concrete,objective information on military activities interritories under their administration. He andother members, including Bulgaria, Mali,Poland, the USSR and the United Republic ofTanzania, rejected the argument that the sub-ject was not within the competence of the Com-mittee or that the report was biased. The UnitedRepublic of Tanzania said there was evidenceof colonial territories being used against thirdparties for military aggression.

A proposal by Italy that the debate shouldbe adjourned until after the close of the twen-ty-third session of the General Assembly wasrejected by the Special Committee by a roll-call vote of 13 to 6, with 3 abstentions. On3 October 1968, the Special Committee ap-proved the report of Sub-Committee I by 16

8 See footnote 6.


votes to 4, with 3 abstentions. The sub-para-graph condemning the use of military basesin colonial territories, especially in Guam andthe Trust Territories, against third parties ascontrary to the spirit of the United NationsCharter and a threat to international peaceand security was adopted by 10 votes to 4, with9 abstentions.

Following the vote, the Ivory Coast statedthat it had a general reservation concerningthe conclusions and recommendations contain-ed in the report, namely, that the question ofmilitary bases was a question involving Statesovereignty. When a territory was on the pointof acceding to independence, it could, in thelight of its own interest, negotiate for the with-drawal or continuance of bases. That extremelyimportant question was being discussed byhigher United Nations organs, and it was ontheir level that the decisions in the mattershould be taken. The representative of Finlandreiterated previous reservations prompted by hiscountry's policy of neutrality.

COMPLIANCE OF MEMBER STATESGuided by General Assembly resolution

2326 (XXII) of 16 December 1967,9 theSpecial Committee of Twenty-four decided toexamine as a separate item the compliance ofMember States with the Declaration on thegranting of independence and other relevantdecisions on the question of decolonization, par-ticularly those relating to Southern Rhodesia,Namibia and the territories under Portuguesedomination. The Special Committee invitedthe Secretary-General to request Member Statesto furnish information concerning the stepstaken and/or envisaged by them in implemen-tation of the resolutions. In June 1968, the Sec-retary-General submitted a report containingsubstantive replies from Governments concern-ing this matter.

During the discussion in the Special Commit-tee, many members emphasized the lack of com-pliance on the part of the administering powerswith the recommendations of the General As-sembly on the pretext that these were not man-datory or binding. The representative of Syriastated that, although the resolutions were re-commendations, they were clearly of cardinalimportance and must be interpreted as moral

obligations. Iraq, Sierra Leone, Tunisia andYugoslavia considered that stronger measureswere needed to bring the colonial powers toimplement the resolutions on decolonization.Firm action and mandatory sanctions wererequired. Yugoslavia considered that, in viewof the colonialists' refusal to respond favour-ably to appeals by the international community,the United Nations must take steps to endthe outside political and material support whichenabled those régimes to pursue their oppres-sive policies. Consistent implementation of theGeneral Assembly's resolutions and the SpecialCommittee's decisions, particularly by the SouthAfrican Republic's trading partners and Por-tugal's military allies, would advance the causeof self-determination and independence and re-move the threat to peace in Africa and else-where. The General Assembly should, there-fore, address a special appeal to all MemberStates, and in particular the colonial powersand countries maintaining economic and otherrelations with racist régimes, to carry out therelevant General Assembly resolutions. Iraqconsidered that the Security Council was theonly organ in a position to apply pressure tothe rebel régime in Southern Rhodesia, whileSierra Leone maintained that nothing less thanforce could bring to an end that illegal régime.

A number of Special Committee members,including Bulgaria, Iraq, Tunisia and theUSSR, stated that their countries had consist-ently implemented the resolutions of the Gen-eral Assembly concerning decolonization andthat, in strict observance of the resolutions, theydid not maintain any relations with régimes insouthern Africa. Tunisia drew attention to theenormous gap between the lip-service paid tothe principles of freedom and equality by somepowers and the reality of national selfish andmaterial interests which prevailed over interna-tional morality and justice. The fact that therelevant resolutions of the General Assemblyhad merely recommendatory force was a feebleexcuse for failure to apply them.

The representative of the USSR stated thatthe Special Committee should study all aspectsof the situation and analyse in depth the rea-sons for the non-compliance by colonial powers

See footnote 6.9


with the resolutions of the United Nations ondecolonization. The situation was particularlydisturbing in southern Africa and it was in-creasingly clear that the United States, theUnited Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Ger-many and certain other North Atlantic TreatyOrganization (NATO) countries were givingeconomic, political and military aid to therégimes of South Africa, Portugal and South-ern Rhodesia. Great international monopoliesand the Governments of the imperial powerscontrolled by them were responsible for theformation of the "unholy alliance" which waswaging war against the African people. TheUSSR had refused to maintain postal ortelecommunications services with SouthernRhodesia and had taken steps to ensure thatUSSR products in the categories specified inthe Security Council resolutions of 16 December196610 and 29 May 1968 (see above, p. 152,for text of resolution 253(1968) of 29 May1968) would not reach Southern Rhodesiaby way of third countries, and that SouthernRhodesian products would not reach theUSSR in a like manner.

The representative of Australia maintainedthat his Government had complied fully withits obligations under the Charter towards theterritories under its administration, as shownby the detailed information which it suppliedto the appropriate organs of the United Na-tions. Australia had also reported to the Sec-retary-General about compliance with theSecurity Council decisions in Southern Rho-desia. The basic policy of Australia with regardto Papua and New Guinea was to develop theTerritory for self-determination.

The United States representative said thathis Government had scrupulously compliedwith all the sanctions decided upon by theSecurity Council, as well as with all agreementsconcluded with the Security Council concern-ing strategic areas in the territories underUnited States administration.

At the request of the Special Committee, itsRapporteur prepared an analytical report, in-cluding conclusions and recommendations, onthis item. The report stated that the progressachieved in recent years in the field of decoloni-zation served only to underline the anomalythat, nearly eight years after the adoption of

the Declaration on the granting of indepen-dence, several million people were still sub-ject to colonial rule, most of them under ré-gimes which offered them little hope of early orpeaceful emancipation.

The report noted that the replies sent byMember States to the Secretary-General re-vealed that the majority of Members were scru-pulously complying with the requests containedin the United Nations resolutions, and weregiving considerable moral, political and materialsupport to the national liberation movements.However, the colonial powers concerned andcertain States, particularly the major tradingpartners and military allies of those powers,continued to disregard the resolutions. Theauthorities in South Africa, Portugal andSouthern Rhodesia had been enjoying the activesupport of international economic and financialinterests to the detriment of the interests of thepeople. The countries in which these interestshad their origin had failed to give effect to therecommendations of the General Assembly.Strategic military bases were also an importantfactor in prolonging colonial rule in some terri-tories where the colonial powers had failed todismantle their military installations and to de-sist from military activities. The administeringpowers had also failed to take vigorous measuresto promote the large-scale dissemination of theDeclaration and of information on the aims andwork of the United Nations in the field of de-colonization.

The report recommended that the GeneralAssembly should: call upon the administeringpowers responsible for the territories under Por-tuguese administration and Southern Rhodesiato take steps forthwith for the transfer of allpowers to the people on the basis of majorityrule, without any conditions or reservations, andwithout any distinction as to race, creed orcolour; call upon the Government of SouthAfrica to relinquish its control over Namibiaimmediately and unconditionally, withdraw itsadministrative police and military personnelfrom Namibia and release all political prisoners;urge all States and, in particular, call upon themilitary allies and the major trading partners of

10 See Y.U.N., 1966, pp. 116-17, for text of SecurityCouncil resolution 232(1966).


Portugal, South Africa and the illegal minorityrégime in Southern Rhodesia, first, to desistfrom giving any assistance—military, economicand otherwise—which might enable those au-thorities to continue their repressive activitiesand, second, to bring pressure to bear on thoseauthorities to abandon their present policies;and recommend to the Security Council that iturgently consider taking effective action underChapter VII of the Charter11 in order to giveeffect to its own resolutions and those of theGeneral Assembly concerning those territories.

With regard to the remaining territories, thereport recommended that the General Assem-bly should urge the administering powers con-cerned to apply without delay the principle ofself-determination, establish majority rule andspeedily transfer all powers to fully representa-tive organs elected on the basis of universaladult suffrage, and should also strongly urgethem to permit the sending of visiting groupsof the Special Committee to the territories undertheir administration, and to co-operate with theSecretary-General in promoting the large-scaledissemination of information concerning the ob-jectives and work of the United Nations in thefield of decolonization. Further, the Assemblyshould call upon all States whose nationalsowned or operated foreign economic and otherinterests which were impeding the implemen-tation of the Declaration to put an end to suchactivities immediately. Finally, the GeneralAssembly should, first, urge the administeringpowers to dismantle their military bases andinstallations in the colonial territories and torefrain from establishing new ones and, second,request all States involved directly or indirectlyin military arrangements and activities in thecolonial territories to desist therefrom withoutdelay.

This last recommendation was adopted by theSpecial Committee by a vote of 12 to 4, with7 abstentions. The report as a whole wasadopted on 5 December 1968 by 18 votes to 4,with 1 abstention.

The United States representative said thatthe report did not accurately reflect the SpecialCommittee's discussions or present a true analy-sis of the facts that had led to the conclusionstherein. The Security Council alone could makea finding such as was contained in the recom-

mendations as to the serious threat to inter-national peace and security in southern Africa.The report disregarded the fact that the UnitedStates had placed an embargo on trade withSouthern Rhodesia. The Government of theUnited States was giving neither military norfinancial assistance to southern Africa.

The representative of Italy stated that theSpecial Committee was not competent to tryto determine the legal force of resolutions ondecolonization since this was a constitutionalproblem. A valid conclusion would be that theresolutions of the General Assembly were effec-tive mainly as a basis for co-operation and aslong as they contained realistic provisions. Hecould not accept the suggestion that the Gen-eral Assembly should recommend to the Se-curity Council that it should urgently considertaking effective action under Chapter VII ofthe Charter.

The United Kingdom representative reiter-ated his Government's statement that it recog-nized the importance of General Assembly reso-lutions, but that they only had the force ofrecommendations. The expression "threat tointernational peace and security" had a specialtechnical meaning whose employment waswithin the exclusive competence of the SecurityCouncil.

Australia also said that the resolutions of theGeneral Assembly only had the force of recom-mendations. While in some resolutions the Gen-eral Assembly called for accelerated economicdevelopment in the territories, in others iturged that the activities of foreign economic in-terests should be brought to an end. The militaryactivities carried out in the territories underAustralian administration were purely defen-sive. As to the large-scale dissemination of infor-mation on the Declaration on the granting ofindependence, there were considerable practicaldifficulties in many territories, but in those ad-ministered by Australia much was being donealong those lines.

Reservations on the report were also madeby the representatives of Finland and Mada-gascar. Finland stated that no distinction wasdrawn between Security Council resolutions and

11 For text of Chapter VII of the Charter, seeAPPENDIX II.


General Assembly resolutions which had theforce of recommendations. Madagascar statedthat the Special Committee was not the rightbody to discuss military bases.

IMPLEMENTATION BY SPECIALIZED AGENCIESAND OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

As requested by the General Assembly in itsresolution 2311 (XXII) of 14 December 1967,12

the Special Committee again examined in 1968the question of the implementation by the spe-cialized agencies and international institutionsassociated with the United Nations of the Decla-ration on the granting of independence. On 1April, with, a view to facilitating its considera-tion of the item, the Committee invited theSecretary-General to request the internationalorganizations concerned to furnish informationrelating to steps taken and/or envisaged bythem in the implementation of General Assem-bly resolution 2311 (XXII).

On 3 July, the Chairman of the SpecialCommittee informed the Committee that, inaccordance with the General Assembly's reso-lution, the Acting President of the Economicand Social Council had held preliminary con-sultations with him on the question of imple-mentation of the Declaration by the specializedagencies and international institutions. Thechairman had suggested that the heads of thespecialized agencies should be invited to par-ticipate fully in discussion of the item at theCouncil's forthcoming session in Geneva,Switzerland, and, in particular, to provide theCouncil with the most recent information con-cerning their policies and activities in that re-gard. The agencies should be invited at the sametime to advance such suggestions as they mightconsider appropriate concerning measures to betaken for the co-ordination of those policies andactivities. The Chairman had agreed with theActing President of the Council that, in thelight of the discussion of the question at theforthcoming Council session and the informa-tion furnished by the specialized agencies, fur-ther consultations might be necessary.

The Special Committee endorsed the Chair-man's statement and suggestion. Reservationswere made, however, by Australia, the UnitedKingdom and the United States on the groundthat they had not voted in favour of the Gen-

eral Assembly's resolution (2311 (XXII)) of 14December 1967.

In accordance with a request by the SpecialCommittee, the Secretary-General asked thefollowing specialized agencies, international in-stitutions associated with the United Nations,and other interested bodies to furnish the rele-vant information: the International LabourOrganisation (ILO), the Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO), the United Nations Ed-ucational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO), the World Health Organization(WHO), the International Bank for Recon-struction and Development, the InternationalMonetary Fund, the International Civil Avia-tion Organization (ICAO), the UniversalPostal Union (UPU), the International Tele-communication Union (ITU), the WorldMeteorological Organization (WMO), theInter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Or-ganization (IMCO), the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA), the Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR), the Organization of AmericanStates (OAS), the League of Arab States andthe Organization of African Unity (OAU).

In October 1968, the Secretary-General sub-mitted a report which included the substantiveportions of the replies received from those or-ganizations. The report stated that the Secretary-General had held discussions on the implemen-tation of the relevant resolutions with the ex-ecutive heads of the agencies and institutionsconcerned, through the Administrative Commit-tee on Co-ordination (ACC). Further discussionstook place at the joint meetings of the Com-mittee for Programme and Co-ordination andACC, which were held at Bucharest, Romania,in July 1968.

On 18 October 1968, the Chairman of theSpecial Committee made a further statementon this item which was endorsed by the Com-mittee. The Chairman stated that it had notbeen possible for further consultations to be heldbetween him and the President of the Economicand Social Council during the mid-1968 ses-sion of the Council at Geneva. He drew atten-tion to the discussions which had taken place

12 See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 646-47, for text of resolu-tion 2311 (XXII).


in the Council on this matter and to the rele-vant extract from the Council's report to theGeneral Assembly. He concluded that the gen-eral feeling of the members of the SpecialCommittee was, inter alia : to express apprecia-tion to the Office of the High Commissionerfor Refugees and to the specialized agencies andthe international institutions which had co-operated with the United Nations in the im-plementation of the relevant resolutions of theGeneral Assembly; to recommend that thoseagencies and institutions should take urgent andeffective measures to assist peoples strugglingfor liberation from colonial rule and, in particu-lar, to extend, within the scope of their respec-tive activities, all necessary aid to the colonialpeoples of Southern Rhodesia and the territoriesunder Portuguese administration, and to workout with OAU, and through it with the nationalliberation movements, concrete programmes tothis end; to recommend that these agenciesand institutions withhold any assistance toSouth Africa, Portugal and the illegal régime inSouthern Rhodesia until they renounced theirpolicies; to recommend to the General Assemblythat it should request the Secretary-General toobtain concrete suggestions from the specializedagencies and international institutions con-cerned as to the best ways and means of achiev-ing the full, speedy and effective implementa-tion of the relevant resolutions; urgently torequest all States, directly and through action inthe agencies and institutions of which they weremembers, to facilitate such implementation; toauthorize the Chairman to continue his con-sultations with the President of the Economicand Social Council; and to express the hopethat the representatives of the specialized agen-cies would actively participate in the consider-ation of the relevant items by the Fourth Com-mittee during the twenty-third (1968) sessionof the General Assembly.

A number of reservations were made by Aus-tralia, Finland, Italy, the United Kingdom andthe United States on the substance of certainparagraphs of the Chairman's statement. Aus-tralia observed that the statement did not showany progress in examining ways in which thespecialized agencies could help in the imple-mentation of the Declaration on the grantingof independence and regretted that some

representatives had made unwarranted attackson the International Bank for Reconstructionand Development and the International Mone-tary Fund. The United States observed thatcertain paragraphs of the statement were in-consistent with the agreements between theUnited Nations and some specialized agenciesof the United Nations and also with the statutesof the specialized agencies.

QUESTION OFVISITING MISSIONS

In its resolution of 16 December 1967,13 theGeneral Assembly had urged the administeringpowers to co-operate with the Special Committeeby permitting visiting missions to the territories.During 1968, the Special Committee decided toconsider the question separately and authorizedits Chairman to request the administering pow-ers concerned to furnish information concerningthe steps envisaged by them in implementationof the Assembly's resolution. The Special Com-mittee also decided that Sub-Committees I, II.and III would consider the item, as appropriate.

On 19 August 1968, the Chairman reportedto the Special Committee on the replies receivedfrom France, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, theUnited Kingdom and the United States in re-sponse to his letters requesting the informationdesired by the Committee.

Following consideration of the item, the Spe-cial Committee, on 19 September 1968, adopteda resolution by 18 votes to 0, with 4 abstentions.The Committee thereby reaffirmed the vital im-portance of visiting missions as a means ofacquiring adequate and first-hand informationregarding political, economic and social condi-tions in the territories and the views, wishes andaspirations of the people. The Committeestrongly urged the administering powers to re-consider their attitudes towards the sending ofvisiting missions and to permit access by suchmissions to territories under their administration.Finally, it requested the Chairman to enter intoconsultations with the administering powerswith regard to the implementation of the reso-lution and to report thereon as appropriate.

The resolution was sponsored by Afghanistan,India, Iran, Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone,

13 See footnote 6.


Tunisia, the United Republic of Tanzania, andYugoslavia.

During the discussion, a number of SpecialCommittee members, including Chile, India,Iraq, Sierra Leone, the USSR and Yugoslavia,considered that the attitude of the administeringpowers in their replies to the Committee hadbeen negative and unco-operative and had ob-structed the Committee's efforts to implementthe resolution. Iraq stated that visiting missionscould tell the people of the territories that theUnited Nations was concerned about their fu-ture and would make it possible to establish adialogue with them. India said that the refusalof the administering powers to allow visitingmissions in non-self-governing territories wasinconsistent with the sacred trust which theyhad accepted under Article 73 of the Charter.14

Iraq and Sierra Leone felt that the reply ofNew Zealand that no mission should be sentto the Niue and Tokelau Islands, unless the visitalso covered other territories in the region, wastantamount to a refusal. A similar view wasexpressed by Finland.

Australia believed that the TrusteeshipAgreements and the United Nations Charter re-quired administering authorities to accept visit-ing missions in Trust Territories only. The reso-lutions of the General Assembly were recom-mendatory and not mandatory.

The United Kingdom expressed reservationson certain aspects of the resolution because itconsidered that decolonization had not beenimpeded by the absence of visiting missions. TheUnited Kingdom had at all times provided fullinformation about territories under its adminis-tration and could not accept the contention thatthe Special Committee lacked information aboutconditions in those territories. The representa-tive of the United Kingdom emphasized, how-ever, that his delegation would be ready to takepart in the consultations referred to in the reso-lution. The United Kingdom did not excludethe possibility of considering, without commit-ment, specific requests for visiting missions.

Similar reservations were made by the repre-sentative of the United States who stated thatprogress towards self-determination in the terri-tories administered by the United States had inno way been retarded by the considered positionof his Government that visiting missions were

not warranted at the present time. He could not,therefore, accept the statement in the resolutionthat visiting missions were vitally important asa means of securing first-hand information onconditions in the territories and on the wishesof the people. Full information on all subjectsin the territories under United States adminis-tration was available to the Special Committee.

In addition to the consideration of the itemby the Special Committee, Sub-Committees I,II and III, in considering the specific territoriesreferred to them, formulated a number of con-clusions and recommendations concerning thesending of visiting missions to specific terri-tories. Those recommendations were subse-quently endorsed by the Special Committee (seeunder individual territories below).

DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL

CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

The Proclamation of Teheran adopted by theInternational Conference on Human Rights—held in Teheran, Iran, from 22 April to 13May 1968—stated, among other things, thateight years after the General Assembly's Decla-ration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples the problemsof colonialism continued to preoccupy the in-ternational community. It was a matter ofurgency, the Proclamation continued, that allMember States should co-operate with the ap-propriate organs of the United Nations so thateffective measures could be taken to ensure thatthe Declaration on the granting of independencewas fully implemented.

Resolution VII, adopted by the Conference,concerned the importance of the universalrealization of the right of peoples to self-deter-mination and of the speedy granting of inde-pendence to colonial countries and peoples forthe effective guarantee and observance of hu-man rights. By this resolution, the Conferencecondemned all colonial régimes, particularlythat of Portugal, for their continual refusal toimplement the Declaration; supported the firmdetermination of the liberation movements andthe peoples in their struggle for liberty andindependence; recognized the right of freedom

14 For text of Article 73 of the Charter, seeAPPENDIX II.


fighters in colonial territories, when captured,to be treated as prisoners of war under the RedCross Geneva Conventions of 1949 ; and appealedto all States and organizations dedicated to theideals of freedom, independence and peace fortheir political, moral and material assistance topeoples struggling for their freedom and inde-pendence. The Conference, further, called uponthe General Assembly to draw up a specificprogramme for the granting of independence toterritories under colonial rule and called uponthe Security Council to resume consideration ofthe question of decolonization and expedite thegranting of independence to colonial countriesand peoples. The resolution also containedparagraphs referring to South Africa, Namibia,Portugal and Southern Rhodesia. (For detailsof the International Conference on HumanRights, see pp. 538-48.)

CONSIDERATION BY

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

On 19 November 1968, at its resumed forty-fifth session, the Economic and Social Councilagreed that the President of the Council andthe Chairman of the Special Committee ofTwenty-four should hold further consultationson the implementation by the specialized agen-cies and the international institutions associatedwith the United Nations of the Declaration onthe granting of independence, and that a reportshould be submitted to the Council at its forty-seventh session, in 1969. (See also above, pp.712-13.)

CONSIDERATION BY

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

GENERAL ASPECTS

At its twenty-third session in 1968, the Gen-eral Assembly had before it the 1968 report ofthe Special Committee of Twenty-four. Generalaspects of the situation with regard to the im-plementation of the Declaration on the grantingof independence were considered by the Assem-bly at its plenary meetings between 16 and 20December 1968. Chapters in the report relatingto specific territories were referred to the Assem-bly's Fourth Committee.

Many representatives who took part in thegeneral debate on this item noted that althougheight years had passed since the adoption, in

1960, of the Declaration on the granting ofindependence, the principles of the United Na-tions Charter on the eradication of colonialismand the provisions of the Declaration were stillfar from being fulfilled. While acknowledgingthat progress had been made, these representa-tives pointed out that it was saddening to realizethat colonialism had not disappeared and thatmillions of human beings remained in servitude.They believed that this situation called for moredetermined decisions and acts on the part of theUnited Nations.

The representative of Tunisia, who wasChairman of the Special Committee of Twenty-four, recalled that 75 of the Member States ofthe United Nations had come into being afterthe signing of the United Nations Charter. TheDeclaration of 1960 had been welcomed as agreat hope for the colonial peoples but theappeal had been "only feebly heeded." TheSpecial Committee had spared no effort to helplead colonial territories towards self-determina-tion. Aware of the need for the co-operation ofthe administering powers, it had acted withrestraint in the hope that they would agree tojoin in working for an honourable, just and last-ing settlement of the distressing problem ofcolonialism.

The representative of the United Republic ofTanzania said that his delegation was outragedthat the General Assembly had still to considerdecolonization, 20 years after the adoption ofthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Inmany territories, the "clutches of colonialism"had been tightened and neo-colonialist activitieshad been redoubled. The General Assemblymust condemn the failure of France, Australia,the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom,Spain and the United States to implement theDeclaration in the territories under their control.

The representative of the Byelorussian SSRdeclared that the Special Committee had doneuseful work in 1968. Its studies had shown thatcertain Western powers were doing all they couldto resist the granting of independence to colonialpeoples and countries. He and other representa-tives, including those of Hungary, Syria and theUSSR, pointed out that the year 1970 wouldmark the tenth anniversary of the Declaration.A reappraisal of progress achieved and of ob-stacles blocking future advance was needed. The


best observance of the anniversary would bethe complete and unconditional implementationof the Declaration.

Representatives of several countries paid spe-cial attention to the situation in the southernpart of Africa. The representative of Libya ob-served that the "rearguard of colonialism andracism" was in southern Africa. Czechoslovakia,Hungary, the USSR, the United Republic ofTanzania and others pointed out that régimesin Southern Rhodesia, South Africa and theterritories under Portuguese administration werecarrying out joint action against national liber-ation movements. They were moving into anever closer political, military and economicalliance to stop the wheel of time. There was aspecial threat to peace which could increaselittle by little and engulf the entire Africancontinent. The representative of Hungary notedthat those régimes defended their evil causeand sought to hold at bay the African Stateswhich had already achieved independence.

A number of countries accused the Westernpowers, particularly those associated with theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),of paying lip-service to anti-colonialism while atthe same time extending their investments insouthern Africa and thus contributing to thefailure of United Nations efforts to put an endto colonialism in that area.

The representative of the United Kingdomnoted that in less than a quarter of a centuryhis country had assisted and participated in anadvance to independence by a quarter of thepopulation of the world, and its greatest achieve-ment was the conversion of an empire into afree Commonwealth. With the exception ofSouthern Rhodesia and the Portuguese terri-tories, which were part of a different and muchlarger problem, the remaining colonial terri-tories numbered about 30, with a total popula-tion of 3.5 million. Among those 30 territories,18 were under British administration. The fu-ture of those 30 territories raised the questionof "micro-States" which had to be dealt withseparately by the United Nations.

The representative of Denmark also believedthat the most serious of the remaining colonialproblems were concentrated in the southernpart of Africa. The territories there should longago have been allowed to obtain their freedom.

But, he said, the fact must be accepted that theUnited Nations was up against serious difficul-ties and forthright resistance which hampereda solution.

Czechoslovakia, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey,the Ukrainian SSR and Venezuela, amongothers, felt that the United Nations should takestill more vigorous action in order that thelast colonial territories should disappear fromthe world map and that colonialism in all itsforms and manifestations should be definitivelyeradicated. The United Nations should act withgreater determination to ensure that the deci-sions taken on decolonization were truly re-spected and implemented.

The representative of the USSR noted thatsince the adoption of the Declaration in 1960,over 30 countries had overthrown the colonialyoke and become independent States. That wasa victory of the peoples concerned, in the firstplace; it was also a victory for the anti-colonialforces in the United Nations and for the progres-sive democratic forces of the whole world. Itwas won as a result of overcoming the stubbornresistance of the colonial empires and not thecontrary, as the representative of the UnitedKingdom had said.

The Special Committee of Twenty-four, theUSSR spokesman went on, had taken a numberof important and useful decisions which wereof assistance to the national liberation struggleof the colonial peoples. Its main task in thefuture should be: to press for the unconditionaland comprehensive international isolation ofracists and colonialists; and to follow atten-tively the implementation by all Members ofthe United Nations of decisions taken, particu-larly those concerning the cessation of the detri-mental activities of foreign monopolies in thecolonies and also the elimination of militarybases in colonial territories and the withdrawaltherefrom of foreign troops. He and others,including the representatives of Romania andYugoslavia, declared that measures ought to beworked out for giving tangible assistance to thenational liberation movements and organizationsthat were directly participating in the struggleof the colonial territories for their independence.

The representatives of Mongolia and Yugo-slavia said that the Security Council should takemore effective measures and use all available


instruments in order to implement decoloniza-tion. Mexico suggested that it was the collectiveduty of the General Assembly to improvemethods for a greater degree of agreement onthe aims of decolonization.

In discussing the question of the small terri-tories, the representatives of Denmark and theUnited Kingdom emphasized that flexibility wascalled for and that it would be wrong to gener-alize about those territories; although most ofthem had unusual needs and difficulties, theyhad one thing in common : the interests of theirinhabitants must be taken as paramount, andthe United Nations must not forget this funda-mental aspect. Special responsibility in this re-spect rested with the administering power. Chilenoted that "micro-States" were largely islandterritories which had a paucity of resources;viable standards were needed for them.

The representatives of India and Somaliafelt that progress towards self-determinationwas very slow in the small territories. While itwas true they presented a special problem, par-ticularly because of their geographical isolation,their people should still be allowed to determinetheir own future. Czechoslovakia, Hungary,Mongolia and the USSR, among others, consid-ered that the administering powers were trans-forming the small territories into military basesand strategic points from which they did notintend to leave voluntarily. Military bases in thecolonies, including bases on the small islandterritories, were widely used by the colonialiststo put down national liberation movements andalso to interfere in the domestic affairs of inde-pendent countries.

Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, India and othersemphasized the importance of visiting missionsfrom the United Nations to dependent terri-tories and urged the administering powers toreconsider their attitudes towards the sending ofsuch missions by the Special Committee. Therepresentative of Czechoslovakia said that it wasregrettable that administering powers had notco-operated with the Special Committee by en-abling it to send visiting missions to the terri-tories for on-the-spot studies of the situation.Moreover, the administering powers had beendelinquent in transmittal of information on thedependent territories.

On 19 December 1968, the representative of

Somalia introduced a draft resolution in theAssembly which was sponsored also by Afghan-istan, Algeria, the Congo (Brazzaville), Guinea,Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Rwanda, SouthernYemen, Syria, the United Arab Republic, theUnited Republic of Tanzania, and Upper Volta.

By the operative paragraphs of this draft, theGeneral Assembly would, among other things:(1) reiterate its declaration that the continua-tion of colonial rule threatened internationalpeace and security and that the practice ofapartheid and all forms of racial discriminationconstituted a crime against humanity; (2) re-affirm its recognition of the legitimacy of thestruggle of the colonial peoples for self-determi-nation and independence and urge all Statesto give the necessary moral, political and ma-terial support to those peoples; (3) request allStates, as well as the specialized agencies andinternational institutions, to withhold any assist-ance to Portugal, South Africa and the illegalrégime in Southern Rhodesia until they re-nounced their policy of colonial domination andracial discrimination; (4) request the colonialpowers to dismantle their military bases andinstallations in colonial territories and to refrainfrom establishing new ones and from usingthose that still existed to interfere with theliberation of the peoples in colonial territories;(5) once again condemn the policy of certaincolonial powers of imposing non-representativerégimes, strengthening the position of foreigneconomic interests and encouraging the influxof foreign immigrants while displacing the in-digenous inhabitants; and (6) urge the admin-istering powers to permit the access of visitingmissions to their territories and to co-operatewith the Secretary-General in promoting thelarge-scale dissemination of information on thework of the United Nations in the implemen-tation of the Declaration.

Further, the Assembly would request theSpecial Committee to make concrete suggestionswhich could assist the Security Council in con-sidering appropriate measures under the Char-ter with regard to developments in colonial terri-tories which were likely to threaten internationalpeace and security. The Assembly would invitethe Special Committee to pay particular atten-tion to the small territories and to recommendto the Assembly methods to enable their popula-


tions to exercise their right to self-determinationand independence. It would also decide to es-tablish a Preparatory Committee for the TenthAnniversary of the Declaration, in 1970, to pre-pare a special programme of activities with aview to finding further ways to expedite theachievement of the objectives of the Declara-tion. The Preparatory Committee would con-sist of the members of the Special Committeeand nine other members to be nominated by thePresident of the General Assembly.

An amendment to the draft resolution wassubmitted by Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland,Romania, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR andYemen, adding a new paragraph to the draft, bywhich the Assembly would declare that thepractice of using mercenaries against nationalliberation movements was punishable as acriminal act and that the mercenaries them-selves were outlaws, and would call upon theGovernments of all countries to enact legislationdeclaring the recruitment, financing and train-ing of mercenaries to be a punishable offence.This amendment was adopted by the GeneralAssembly on 20 December 1968 by 53 votes to8, with 43 abstentions.

At the same meeting, Ethiopia, India, Iran,Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Niger, SierraLeone and Yugoslavia submitted two amend-ments to the paragraph relating to the estab-lishment of the Preparatory Committee for theTenth Anniversary of the Declaration. The firstwould substitute "six" for "nine" members tobe nominated by the President of the Assembly,and the second would insert the words "inconsultation with the Chairman of the SpecialCommittee" thereafter. The first amendmentwas adopted by the Assembly by a roll-call voteof 29 to 9, with 73 abstentions, the second by aroll-call vote of 41 to 4, with 66 abstentions andthe paragraph as a whole by 84 votes to 3, with26 abstentions. The Assembly then adopted thedraft resolution as a whole, as amended, by 87votes to 7, with 17 abstentions, as resolution2465 (XXIII). (For text of resolution, seeDOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Among those who spoke in explanation ofvote, the representative of Colombia said thathe did not share the view expressed in the reso-lution's operative paragraph concerning the spe-

cialized agencies because it compromised theautonomy of those agencies. The representativeof Chile could not accept the paragraph relatingto military bases since he did not regard the issueas one falling within the competence of the Spe-cial Committee of Twenty-four. The representa-tive of Italy said that he had no objection to thelast part of the amendment concerning merce-naries, but the meaning of the word "outlaw"in the first part of the amendment was not clear ;no one could be outside the law, he said. Therepresentative of Ireland said that the use ofmercenaries was particularly abhorrent to hiscountry, but the amendment raised importantconstitutional issues and Ireland could not sup-port it. The representative of South Africa saidthe resolution was politically biased; SouthAfrica had voted against it, he said, because itwas largely a repetition of previous resolutions towhich South Africa had already expressed itsobjections.

Reservations were also made by the represent-atives of Turkey and Greece. The representa-tive of Greece voted against the paragraphrelating to the mercenaries which, he said, wasout of context with the rest of the resolution.The representative of Belgium said that merce-naries were prohibited in his country; however,Belgium had abstained in the vote on the draftresolution because of the questionable wordingof the paragraph. The United States representa-tive had voted against the resolution because,he said, it ill served the cause of decolonizationand distorted the principles and historical fac-tors upon which decolonization must rest. Thematter of foreign bases was a complicated oneon which there was no consensus, and it waspart of the general question of disarmament.The references to foreign economic interestswere based on erroneous assumptions. TheUnited States representative also questioned theneed for a preparatory committee on the anni-versary of the Declaration.

In connexion with the item on the implemen-tation of the Declaration, the Permanent Repre-sentative of Bulgaria addressed a letter dated8 November 1968 to the Secretary-General,which was circulated as an official document ofthe General Assembly. The letter contained astatement by the Government of the GermanDemocratic Republic concerning its attitude


towards the apartheid régime of South Africa,the racist minority régime in Southern Rhodesiaand the Portuguese colonial régime. While theGerman Democratic Republic was providingactive assistance to the peoples fighting for theirindependence and for liberation from racistsuppression, the statement said, the West Ger-man Federal Republic was further and fur-ther extending its economic and political co-operation with those régimes.

On 21 December 1968, France, the UnitedKingdom and the United States addressed a let-ter to the Secretary-General which was alsocirculated as a document of the General Assem-bly. They stated that the Bulgarian letter impliedthe existence of a State or Government otherthan that of the Federal Republic of Germany,entitled to speak on behalf of the Germanpeople in international affairs. This was not thecase. The Government of the Federal Republicwas the sole German Government freely andlawfully elected and, therefore, authorized tospeak in the name of the German people ininternational affairs.

On 14 January 1969, Bulgaria wrote to theSecretary-General that the letter from France,the United Kingdom and the United Statesmade unfounded allegations concerning theinternational status of the German DemocraticRepublic. The existence of the German Demo-cratic Republic, a sovereign and independentState pursuing a policy of peace and inter-national co-operation, was a historical reality.

IMPLEMENTATION BY SPECIALIZED AGENCIES

AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

General Assembly discussion of the questionof the implementation by the specialized agen-cies and the international institutions associatedwith the United Nations of the Declaration onthe granting of independence was held mainlyin the Assembly's Fourth Committee, which hadbefore it the texts of a number of communica-tions from specialized agencies to the Secretary-General.

The International Labour Organisation(ILO), in its letter, said that it would continueto co-operate fully in ensuring general respectfor the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as essential humanrights, and in meeting promptly and effectively

requests for assistance under ILO technical co-operation programmes. South Africa was nolonger a member of ILO and the policy of ILOconcerning apartheid continued to be governedby the declaration adopted by the InternationalLabour Conference on 8 July 1964.15 ILO wouldcontinue to do everything within its power tocontribute to such action regarding SouthernRhodesia as might be decided upon by the Se-curity Council, and would continue to refrainfrom having official or unofficial contacts, director indirect, with the illegal régime in SouthernRhodesia. As regards Portugal, no aid or co-operation had been granted by ILO at any timein respect of territory outside Europe, and nosuch aid or co-operation had been granted inEurope since January 1966. Thus, no aid orco-operation was being given to South Africa,Southern Rhodesia or Portugal, and any ques-tion which might arise in the future would besubmitted to the Governing Body of ILO, whichwould take account of the obligations of ILOtowards the United Nations in relation to therelevant decisions of the General Assembly.

The United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization (UNESCO) trans-mitted the text of two resolutions adopted by itsGeneral Conference in November 1968. In par-ticular, the General Conference recalled to theattention of the Executive Board and theDirector-General of UNESCO the necessity foia further intensification of their activities witha view to rendering comprehensive assistance topeoples fighting for their liberation from colonialdomination, to eliminating all the consequencesof colonialism and to drawing up, in co-opera-tion with the Organization of African Unityand, through its intermediary, with the na-tional liberation movements, complete pro-grammes to that end. The General Conferencereaffirmed its decision to withhold assistancefrom Portugal, South Africa and the illegalrégime of Southern Rhodesia in matters relatingto education, science and culture, and not toinvite them to attend conferences or take partin other UNESCO activities, until such time asthey abandoned their policy of colonial domi-nation and racial discrimination.

15 See Y.U.N., 1964, pp. 492-93, for details aboutthe ILO declaration.


In another resolution, the UNESCO GeneralConference condemned Portugal's attitude,which was in contradiction with UNESCO'sideals, and invited member States to suspendall co-operation with Portugal in education,science and culture. It also requested theDirector-General of UNESCO to grant in-creased aid and assistance to the African refu-gees from countries and territories still underPortuguese domination.

In other communications, the World Meteoro-logical Organization (WMO) expressed itsearnest wish to assist in every way in the train-ing of refugees in the field of meteorology.WMO, under its participation in the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP),operated several regional training centres inAfrica. Facilities for the training of refugeesin meteorology were, therefore, readily availablein Africa and in countries elsewhere if required.Finally, the Inter-Governmental Maritime Con-sultative Organization (IMCO) informed theUnited Nations Secretariat that IMCO gave notechnical assistance to South Africa or Portugal.

During the discussion, Bulgaria, the Byelo-russian SSR, the Democratic Republic of theCongo, Hungary, India, Poland, Senegal andthe United Arab Republic, among others, notedthat certain specialized agencies and interna-tional institutions associated with the UnitedNations had already taken various steps to helpthe peoples in the colonial countries. However,the International Monetary Fund and the In-ternational Bank for Reconstruction and De-velopment had continued to provide financialassistance to the colonial powers, thus helpingto maintain the colonial system. They empha-sized that the agencies should deny assistanceto the colonial régimes in southern Africa andincrease their assistance to the colonial peoples.The representative of the Byelorussian SSR saidit was regrettable that the International Mone-tary Fund had granted a credit to South Africain 1968. The attitude adopted by the Fund andthe Bank was not surprising, however, sincethe decisions taken in those two institutions weremainly controlled by the United States, theUnited Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Ger-many and other Western countries. Hungaryand Poland stated that all States members ofinternational organizations should do everything

they could within those organizations to guidethem in such a direction that they could con-tribute to the speedy eradication of colonialism.

Bulgaria and Libya were of the opinion thatorganizations which were connected with theUnited Nations should give more active assist-ance to the victims of colonialism, especiallyin such fields as youth education, general medi-cal care and child nutrition. The Economic andSocial Council could play an important role,together with the Special Committee of Twenty-four, in adopting measures for the co-ordinationof the aid programmes and activities of thespecialized agencies in this field. The repre-sentative of Ceylon felt that the United NationsEducational and Training Programme and theoffers by Member States of study and trainingfacilities were of fundamental importance tocountries emerging from prolonged colonialdomination, and Ceylon was glad to observethe great co-operation evident in that respect.There was much scope for action by MemberStates to bring about changes in the policiesof the specialized agencies, always bearing inmind the purposes for which the agencies hadbeen established.

The representative of Tunisia said that, ingeneral, the specialized agencies and interna-tional organizations were to be congratulatedon the promptness they had shown in co-op-erating with the United Nations in measuresto provide economic, social and humanitarianassistance to those struggling to free themselvesfrom colonial domination and to refugees fromdependent territories. Some organizations, how-ever, had encountered practical difficulties,which should be carefully studied. Afghanistanand Pakistan also noted the positive response ofseveral organizations to the resolution. It waspointed out that other agencies had not re-sponded with equal spontaneity, some becauseof technical difficulties and others because theyfelt that to take action towards the implementa-tion of the Declaration on the granting of in-dependence was incompatible with their status.

The USSR noted that the General Assembly'sresolution of 14 December 196716 had scarcelybeen implemented. A number of institutions,such as the International Bank for Reconstruc-

16 See footnote 12.


tion and Development, in reply to the letteraddressed by the Secretary-General, had saidthat they had no intention of implementing theresolution. The USSR strongly protested againstsuch a refusal, and felt that the loans grantedby the Bank to Portugal and South Africashould be cancelled. A similar point of viewwas expressed by the representative of the UnitedArab Republic, who failed to see how thestatutes of international institutions could beincompatible with United Nations objectives.

The representative of Argentina said thatthe relations between the United Nations andthe specialized agencies were not uniform. Theywere based on the agreements concluded be-tween each agency and the United Nations.His country's position was based on three prin-ciples: the recommendations addressed to thespecialized agencies should not be so broadlyconceived as to be in the end counter-produc-tive; such recommendations in no way detractedfrom the responsibility of Member States, whichwere the parties in fact responsible for theapplication of United Nations resolutions; andthe specialized agencies had a major part toplay in matters of decolonization bearing oneducational, health or food problems.

A draft resolution was submitted in the FourthCommittee on 9 December 1968 by Algeria,Bulgaria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia,Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Mauritania, Mongolia,Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal,Sierra Leone, Syria, Tunisia, the United ArabRepublic, the United Republic of Tanzania,Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zambia.

By the operative part of this draft resolution,the Assembly would: (1) reiterate its appealto the specialized agencies, the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency and the internationalinstitutions associated with the United Nationsto extend their full co-operation to the UnitedNations in the achievement of the objectivesand provisions of the resolution setting forththe Declaration on the granting of independ-ence and other relevant resolutions of the Gen-eral Assembly; (2) express its appreciation tothe Office of the United Nations High Com-missioner for Refugees and to the specializedagencies and the international institutions whichhad co-operated with the United Nations in

the implementation of the relevant Assemblyresolutions; (3) recommend that the special-ized agencies and international institutions con-cerned should assist the peoples struggling fortheir liberation from colonial rule and, in par-ticular, should work out, within the scope oftheir respective activities and in co-operationwith the Organization of African Unity andthrough it with the national liberation move-ments, concrete programmes of assistance tothe oppressed peoples of Southern Rhodesia,Namibia and the territories under Portuguesedomination; (4) appeal once again to all thespecialized agencies and international institu-tions, and in particular the International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development and theInternational Monetary Fund, to take all nec-essary steps to withhold financial, economic,technical and other assistance from the Gov-ernments of South Africa and Portugal untilthey renounced their policies of racial discrimi-nation and colonial domination; (5) requestall States to take action in the specialized agen-cies and international institutions of which theywere members for the full and speedy imple-mentation of the relevant Assembly resolutions;(6) request the Economic and Social Councilto consider, in consultation with the SpecialCommittee of Twenty-four, appropriate meas-ures for the co-ordination of the policies andactivities of the specialized agencies; (7) invitethe Secretary-General to continue to assist thespecialized agencies and the international in-stitutions concerned in working out appropriatemeasures for implementing the relevant Assem-bly resolutions; and (8) request the SpecialCommittee of Twenty-four to report again onthis question in 1969.

On 10 December, the USSR introduced anamendment to insert a new operative paragraph5 by which the Assembly would recommend thatthe International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment should withdraw the loans andcredits it had granted to Portugal and SouthAfrica, which were being used by those Gov-ernments to suppress the national liberationmovements in the Portuguese colonies and Na-mibia and against the African population ofSouth Africa.

The USSR amendment was adopted by theFourth Committee on 13 December by a roll-


call vote of 33 to 31, with 35 abstentions. Sep-arate votes were taken on the sixth preambularparagraph and on two operative paragraphs ofthe draft. The sixth preambular paragraph, bywhich the Assembly would note with regret thatsome of the specialized agencies and interna-tional institutions associated with the UnitedNations, particularly the International Bank forReconstruction and Development and the Inter-national Monetary Fund, had not so far im-plemented the General Assembly's resolutionof 14 December 196717 and other relevant reso-lutions, was adopted by 65 votes to 3, with 32abstentions. Operative paragraph 3, concerningconcrete aid to oppressed peoples, was adoptedby 77 votes to 6, with 16 abstentions, andoperative paragraph 4, urging that assistanceto the Governments of South Africa and Portu-gal be withheld, was adopted by 67 votes to7, with 27 abstentions. The draft resolution as awhole, as amended, was then approved by theFourth Committee by a roll-call vote of 79to 5, with 19 abstentions.

In a communication circulated to the Assem-bly on 17 December, the representative of theInternational Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment stated that the formal loan agree-ments entered into by the Bank legally pre-vented it from acting according to the recom-mendation, in the draft resolution before theAssembly, that the Bank withdraw loans andcredits it had granted to South Africa andPortugal. If it did so, the borrowers could takelegal action against the Bank before the inter-national arbitral tribunals established by theloan agreements.

At a plenary meeting on 18 December 1968,the General Assembly also voted separately, byrecorded vote, on: the sixth preambular para-graph, which was adopted by 58 votes to 4,with 48 abstentions; and on operative paragraph4, which was adopted by 58 votes to 10, with42 abstentions. The Assembly then voted sep-arately on the new operative paragraph 5 (theUSSR amendment), which was adopted by arecorded vote of 36 to 31, with 43 abstentions.The draft resolution, as a whole, was thenadopted by a recorded vote of 82 to 7, with25 abstentions, as resolution 2426(XXIII). (Forvoting details and text of resolution, see DOCU-MENTARY REFERENCES below.)

South Africa explained its negative vote bysaying that the specialized agencies should notbe encouraged by the United Nations to applypolitical criteria to their activities at the ex-pense of their technical structure. The UnitedStates said that it voted against the draftresolution as a whole principally because ofthe amendment proposed by the USSR; otherparagraphs of the resolution were inconsistentwith agreements between the agencies and theUnited Nations and with the statutes of theagencies themselves.

In explaining their abstention on certainparagraphs of the draft resolution, Colombiaand Guatemala referred to the institutionaland statutory difficulties which prevented theInternational Bank for Reconstruction and De-velopment and the International MonetaryFund from implementing the political directivesof the General Assembly. Other Members hav-ing reservations on parts of the resolution in-cluded Ceylon, Chile, Gabon, Greece, Hon-duras, Italy, Spain, Thailand and Venezuela.

ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGNECONOMIC AND OTHER INTERESTS

CONSIDERATION BYSPECIAL COMMITTEE

In accordance with the General Assembly'sresolution of 7 December 196718 the SpecialCommittee of Twenty-four continued its studyof the question of the activities of foreign eco-nomic and other interests which were impedingthe implementation of the Declaration on thegranting of independence in Southern Rhodesia,Namibia and territories under Portuguese domi-nation, and in all other territories under colonialdomination, and efforts to eliminate colo-nialism, apartheid and racial discrimination insouthern Africa. The Committee referred thequestion to its Sub-Committee I, which hadbefore it working papers prepared by the UnitedNations Secretariat on economic conditions,with particular reference to foreign economicinterests, in Southern Rhodesia, Namibia, An-gola, Mozambique, the Solomon Islands, NewHebrides, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Papua

17 Ibid.18 See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 648-49, for text of resolu-

tion 2288 (XXII).


and the Trust Territory of New Guinea, theBahamas, Bermuda, Antigua, Dominica, Gre-nada, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St.Vincent and Fiji. The Sub-Committee also hadexcerpts from statements made by petitionersbefore the Fourth Committee in 1967 and theSpecial Committee of Twenty-four in 1968 con-cerning Namibia, the territories under Portu-guese administration, Southern Rhodesia, Ber-muda, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla and the Gilbertand Ellice Islands.

The Sub-Committee's conclusions and rec-ommendations on the question were includedin its report to the Special Committee, whichadopted it on 7 November 1968, by 16 votesto 3, with 2 abstentions.

In its conclusions, the Sub-Committee statedthat, despite the condemnation by the GeneralAssembly of the activities of foreign monopoliesin colonial territories which were impedingprogress towards self-determination and inde-pendence, the countries whose companies andnationals took part in those activities had donenothing to implement the Assembly's recom-mendations, and no legislative, administrativeor other measures had been taken to restrainthem; indeed, the information provided by theSecretariat showed that further consolidationand expansion had taken place in the processesof exploitation which deprived the people ofthe natural resources needed for a viable inde-pendence.

The Sub-Committee stated that its studyproved that foreign economic and other inter-ests in colonial territories constituted a majorobstacle to political independence and socialand economic justice. Foreign monopolies con-tinued to follow economic and financial policiesdetrimental to the territories' genuine interests;they continued to develop only those economicsectors yielding the highest profits and reducedthe territories to the role of suppliers of agri-cultural products and raw materials to themetropolitan countries; they earned high profitsbecause of special privileges granted by thecolonial administration and the pursuance ofa policy of racial discrimination; and the indi-genous labourers continued to receive wagesseveral times lower than those of non-indigenousworkers and had no social security benefits. Thehigh profits earned by the foreign monopolies

were taken out of the territories or remained inthe hands of the exploitative minority of foreignsettlers.

In Southern Rhodesia, Namibia, Angola andMozambique, the Sub-Committee found, foreignmonopolies had been able to increase theirprofits. Even the application of the economicsanctions proclaimed against the racist régimein Southern Rhodesia had been undermined.The political, economic and social policies andinstitutions established by colonial régimes inthe territories in southern Africa were gearedto ensure more concessions and privileges forthe monopolies and to use the indigenous in-habitants as a source of cheap labour. In return,the monopolies supplied the colonial regimeswith funds and other forms of assistance, in-cluding the military assistance needed to crushnational liberation movements. Information onterritories in the Caribbean and Pacific Oceanareas also demonstrated the continuing exploita-tion of their natural resources by foreign mo-nopolies without fair regard to the legitimateinterests of the populations concerned. Thesame pattern of land alienation and unfair ex-ploitation prevailed.

During the debate in the Special Committeeon the Sub-Committee's report, the representa-tives of Australia, the United Kingdom and theUnited States opposed the report and stronglycriticized its conclusions and recommendations,which they considered were not sustained bythe information contained in the working papersof the Secretariat. That information did notprove that foreign economic and other interestsoperating in colonial territories constituted amajor obstacle to political independence. Therepresentative of Australia stated that the Sub-Committee had not taken into account thesuggestions made during the previous year con-cerning the procedure and methods which mightbe followed in preparing a report of that kind.All the dependent territories had been lumpedtogether and sweeping conclusions had beenindiscriminately applied to them all. Foreigninvestment had been treated as a generalizedconcept detrimental to indigenous interests.

The spokesmen for Australia, the UnitedKingdom and the United States pointed outthat economic development was sought afterby most developing countries and that almost


all of them recognized that foreign investmentcould be useful to them. Moreover, various in-ternational bodies, including the General As-sembly, had adopted resolutions which soughtto encourage foreign private investment in thedeveloping countries.

The representative of the United Statessaid it was erroneous to assume that for-eign private investment thrived best independent territories. Approximately 60 percent of all United States direct investmentabroad in 1966 had gone to Europe and Canada;only about 1 per cent of all United States for-eign investments had gone to South Africa, andthe sums invested in Southern Rhodesia andother dependent territories of Africa had beenrelatively negligible, as had United States in-vestments in dependent territories in the Pa-cific area. Traditionally, investors abroad didnot attempt to interfere in the policy of theGovernments in whose territories they invested,and the existence of certain conditions in thearea of investment in no way implied that theinvestors endorsed the policies of the Govern-ments concerned. The United States believedthat cessation of foreign investment in the re-maining dependent territories would mean lesseconomic growth. It agreed that any foreigneconomic activities which ran counter to theinterests of the indigenous inhabitants shouldbe restrained and that foreign economic inter-ests should not impede self-determination orindependence, and it suggested a recommenda-tion to the General Assembly on those Unes.

The Australian representative said that hisGovernment's grant to the budget of the Terri-tory of Papua and New Guinea had been in-creased from $77.6 to $87 million and that theadministration envisaged the expenditure ofnearly $1,000 million on the five-year develop-ment programme for the Territory. The plans,which had been endorsed by the locally electedHouse of Assembly, called for increased privateforeign investment in the Territory as a neces-sary element in its development. The recom-mendations of the Sub-Committee ran counterto the experience of the vast majority of devel-oping countries with which Papua and NewGuinea had many economic problems in com-mon.

In reply, the representative of the USSR saidthat the United States representative had at-tempted to prove that investment played aprogressive role in developing countries and thatbig business did not intervene in foreign coun-tries and impede independence. Those conten-tions were not supported by the facts. Business-men played the role of kingmakers, helping toformulate the domestic policies of the countriesin which they invested. The United States Mu-tual Security Act of 1951 provided that noeconomic or technical assistance could be givento any country unless the recipients agreed tocarry out bilateral military agreements or unlessthe assistance was of benefit to the security ofthe United States. Knowing that profits werefar greater overseas, the United States wastaking steps to encourage the export of capitaland investments. Facts showed that Americanmonopolistic capital thrived on military profitsand the arms race, on the capture of the princi-pal sources of raw material, on foreign marketsand areas of investment, and on ruthless ex-ploitation of millions of people around theworld.

Finland and Italy considered that the con-clusions and recommendations of the Sub-Com-mittee were too general and that not all foreigninterests were an obstacle to independence; nodistinction had been made, they said, betweeninterests which were harmful and those whichwere hot. Therefore, they had abstained in thevote on the report. Venezuela said that thereport gave insufficient information on eachterritory. The conclusions of the report wereacceptable but were not applicable to all terri-tories. The important point was to determineprecisely which sectors of the economies of de-pendent territories were being impaired by for-eign interests.

Other members, including Syria and theUnited Republic of Tanzania, spoke in defenceof the Sub-Committee's report. The representa-tive of Syria considered that the criticism di-rected against the report was the result of amisunderstanding. The report was concernedonly with those economic interests which wereimpeding the implementation of the Declara-tion on the Granting of Independence to Colo-nial Countries and Peoples, so that the question


of the possible advantages of foreign investmentin developing countries was quite irrelevant.Foreign economic and other interests whichwere concerned only with making enormousprofits were responsible for the fact that de-pendent territories had no trained cadres, andthis fact was often used as a pretext to delayindependence. Furthermore, developing coun-tries were making concrete sacrifices for thefuture, and the resources invested in public ed-ucation, modernization and social welfare in-evitably reduced the level of their per capitaincome. That was not the case in the colonies,where the interests of the people were exploitedto maintain high profits for large foreigncompanies.

CONSIDERATION BY

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

At its twenty-third session in 1968, the Gen-eral Assembly included as a separate item on itsagenda the question of activities of foreign eco-nomic and other interests which were impedingthe implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples, and the item was allocatedto the Fourth Committee for consideration andreport.

During the debate, a majority of the Mem-bers of the Fourth Committee expressed theview that the activities of foreign economicinterests constituted a major obstacle to theemancipation of the colonial peoples. Algeria,Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Hungary, Iraqand the USSR observed that financial circles inthe United Kingdom, the United States andother Western States were particularly active insupporting colonialism and apartheid in south-ern Africa and were promoting the establish-ment of conditions favourable to neo-colonialistdomination in the area. The representatives ofJamaica, Kenya and Malaysia stressed the viewthat those interests supported the policy of dis-crimination against the black Africans. In SouthAfrica, the Jamaican representative said, legis-lation precluded collective bargaining by Afri-cans, and the Government could thus keep wagerates far below subsistence level. If the Africanswere to have higher wages and better workingconditions, the result would be a substantial

decline in investment profits. Hence it was easyto see why such interests supported the SouthAfrican régime. The United Kingdom and theUnited States both controlled 60.4 per cent of allforeign investment in South Africa and Na-mibia. Their claim that they could not influ-ence South Africa's policy of apartheid wassurprising since they knew that they couldeasily control the investments in questionthrough exchange control regulations. The re-turn on an investment in countries with anapartheid economy was 20.6 per cent, or doublethe world average. According to the representa-tive of Malaysia, the studies undertaken by theSpecial Committee's Sub-Committee, as well asby other United Nations bodies, proved thatforeign capital was attracted towards southernAfrica by the abnormally high rate of profit,owing mainly to the fact that labour was plenti-ful and cheap. Foreign interests, far from pro-moting the advancement of the peoples, con-sidered that any improvement in their condi-tions would result in an increase in productioncosts and would upset the status quo.

Other Members of the Fourth Committee—including Barbados, Liberia, Morocco, Senegal,Tunisia and the United Arab Republic—alsoexpressed the conviction that economic interestsof foreign powers were impeding the liberationof peoples and that such activities should beeliminated. The United Arab Republic repre-sentative said that the spheres of national ex-ploitation in previous centuries had been replacedby an actual alliance of the colonial powers suchas the United States, the United Kingdom, theFederal Republic of Germany and other WesternEuropean powers. Madagascar said that foreigninvestments should not be condemned out-right, for territories still under the colonialrégime usually had only limited resources andmight end up as victims of neo-colonialism ifthe independence they achieved rested on aneconomically weak foundation. The administer-ing powers must, therefore, take strict measuresto control private companies and protect theinterests of the population and should apply theInternational Labour Code adopted by the In-ternational Labour Organisation. The USSRrepresentative emphasized the role played bythe monopolies in maintaining colonialism and


racism in southern Africa, including American,German and French companies which exportedthe raw materials from the area that were laterused for the manufacture of armaments used toput down the national liberation movements.The same conditions obtained in Oman as aresult of the concessions granted for the ex-ploitation of petroleum by foreign companies.The representative of Romania said that thefact that Africa was still largely underdevelopedwas not due to any lack of natural or humanresources but to fierce exploitation over a longperiod; Africa would remain underdevelopedas long as foreign interests were allowed to op-erate freely. It was the duty of the UnitedNations to help the national liberation move-ments to enjoy full sovereignty over theirresources.

The Fourth Committee had before it a draftresolution on this item sponsored by Algeria,the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana,Guinea, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Libya,Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda,Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo,Tunisia, the United Arab Republic, the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen,Yugoslavia and Zambia.

By this draft, the General Assembly would:(1) approve the report of the Special Com-mittee of Twenty-four on this question; (2) re-affirm the inalienable right of the peoples ofdependent territories to self-determination andindependence and to the natural resources oftheir territories, as well as their right to disposeof them in their best interest; (3) declare thatany administering power, by depriving the colo-nial people of the exercise of those rights or bysubordinating them to foreign economic andfinancial interests, violated its obligations underthe United Nations Charter and impeded theimplementation of the Declaration on the grant-ing of independence; (4) condemn the exploi-tation and the methods practised in the terri-tories by those foreign economic, financial andother interests which were designed to perpetu-ate colonial rule; (5) deplore the policies ofthe administering powers aimed at encouragingthe systematic inflow of foreign immigrants tocolonial territories which jeopardized the rightsand interests of the colonial peoples; (6) deplorethe refusal of the States concerned to implement

provisions of the Assembly's resolution of 7December 196719, (7) request the administer-ing powers to put an end to all practices whichviolated the political, economic and socialrights of the peoples; (8) request all States totake practical measures to ensure that the ac-tivities of their nationals involved in economic,financial and other concerns in dependent terri-tories did not run counter to the rights andinterests of the people; (9) request the SpecialCommittee of Twenty-four to continue to studythis question; and (10) request the Secretary-General to use all the facilities at his disposalto render all assistance to the Special Committeein the pursuit of this study.

On 13 December 1968, the Fourth Commit-tee voted separately on the first operative para-graph of the draft, whereby the Assembly wouldapprove the report of the Special Committee onthis question. The paragraph was adopted by avote of 70 to 7, with 29 abstentions. Next, theFourth Committee voted separately on the thirdoperative paragraph, whereby the Assemblywould declare that an administering power de-priving the colonial peoples of their rights totheir natural resources or subordinating them toforeign interests violated its obligations underthe United Nations Charter. This paragraphwas adopted by a vote of 81 to 4, with 18 ab-stentions. The Fourth Committee approved thedraft resolution as a whole by a roll-call vote of89 to 2, with 17 abstentions.

After the vote, the representative of Aus-tralia said that he could not accept the findingsof the Special Committee's report which didnot take into account the criticisms and sugges-tions made by Australia the previous year. Thereport considered all foreign interests as preju-dicial to the interests of dependent peoples,regardless of the fact that dependent territoriesneeded foreign capital to compete with inde-pendent States. Ireland, Turkey, Mexico, Ja-pan and Spain had certain reservations on someprovisions of the report or of the draft reso-lution.

The United States referred to the explanationof its position given in the Special Committee;it could not support a resolution endorsing areport based on patently erroneous assumptions,

19 Ibid.


one of which was that private foreign invest-ment per se was prejudicial to the interest ofrecipient countries. In that connexion, theUnited States representative noted that theGeneral Assembly had adopted a series of reso-lutions seeking to encourage private foreigninvestment in developing countries. A seconderroneous assumption was that private invest-ment thrived best in dependent areas, and athird was that the holding of dependent terri-tories was desirable for the prosperity of themetropolitan power.

The draft resolution was adopted on 18 De-cember 1968 at a plenary meeting of the Gen-eral Assembly by a recorded vote of 87 to 2,with 19 abstentions, as resolution 2425 (XXIII).(For voting details and text of resolution, seeDOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONALAND TRAINING PROGRAMMEFOR SOUTHERN AFRICA

By a resolution of 19 December 1967,20 theGeneral Assembly decided to integrate the spe-cial educational and training programmes forSouth West Africa, the special training pro-gramme for territories under Portuguese ad-ministration and the educational and trainingprogramme for South Africans and, under cer-tain conditions, to include in the UnitedNations Educational and Training Programmeassistance to persons from Southern Rhodesia.

REPORT OFSECRETARY-GENERAL

Reporting on implementation of the Assem-bly's resolution, the Secretary-General notedthat the consolidated Programme had begun tobe fully operational in January 1968. (Thenumber of applications received and awardsgranted from 1 January to 30 September 1968are listed below in TABLE I.)

Increased efforts had been made to placemore scholarship holders in educational andtraining institutions in Africa, the report said,but with only limited success. Of current awardrecipients, two thirds were studying in Africaand almost one half of these were pursuingsecondary education courses there. Difficultiesof placement resulted from the fact that themajority of applicants in need of further sec-

ondary school studies or technical training wereeither over-age or under-qualified for entranceto government-supported schools with strictentry requirements and limited vacancies. Itwas hoped that the Governments concernedwould offer places in suitable educational insti-tutions to candidates granted awards. TheSecretary-General pointed out that the Pro-gramme also continued to be hampered by otherproblems relating to the legal status of appli-cants, travel documents, employment opportu-nities and the question of co-ordination amongthe various agencies, governmental and volun-tary, which were active in this field.

The report stated that the most serious prob-lem was the extremely serious financial situa-tion, which if not solved satisfactorily in thenear future would jeopardize the existence ofthe Programme. Response had been disappoint-ingly poor to two appeals made in Februaryand August 1968 by the Secretary-General toMember States and members of the specializedagencies to achieve a consolidated trust fundtarget of $3 million for the three-year period1968-1970. (Contributions pledged and paid inthe period 1 January to 5 December are givenbelow in TABLE II.)

The report noted that hundreds of applica-tions, many for candidates with excellent quali-fications, had had to be rejected for lack offunds, and the serious situation made even theextension of existing awards uncertain. Newgrants had to be stopped. The Secretary-General expressed the hope that the situationwould not be allowed to deteriorate further,especially in view of the very important reasonsfor which the programmes had been established.In the circumstances, he was unable to takeany steps towards promoting the further devel-opment and expansion of the Programme. Inview of the financial difficulties, the Secretary-General suggested that the General Assemblyconsider, as a transitional measure to ensurecontinued operation of the Programme pendingadequate voluntary contributions, provision inthe 1969 budget of the United Nations of anappropriation of $100,000, as was approvedfor 1968.

20 See Y.U.N.. 1967, pp. 649-50, for text of resolu-tion 2349 (XXII).


In accordance with the Assembly's resolutionof 19 December 1967, the Secretary-General re-ported that he had continued to study the meansof promoting the further development of theProgramme by consultations with the UnitedNations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR), the Director-General of the UnitedNations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO), the heads of otherappropriate agencies and organs and the Ad-ministrative Secretary-General of the Organi-zation of African Unity. However, the inade-quacy of funds for the operation of the Pro-gramme had made it impossible to pursue thoseconsultations in a meaningful way. The Secre-tary-General expressed his deep gratitude tothose officials for their continuing co-operationand valuable advice, which he considered essen-tial to the successful implementation of theProgramme.

Valuable assistance had been received fromthe Office of the High Commissioner for Refu-gees in the clarification of the status of appli-cations to the Programme, the issuance of traveldocuments by States of residence to the refugeeapplicants, and the participation of UNHCRrepresentatives in ad hoc panels established toscrutinize applications in various countries.

During the consultations, the report con-tinued, UNESCO suggested that it should bepossible for the United Nations to develop studyfacilities for refugees and guidance services fororienting refugees towards university studiesand other training programmes which had beenestablished with the assistance of other special-ized agencies, and in this regard to co-operatewith the 27 teacher training colleges assisted byUNESCO and the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme and the heads of schools of generaleducation in which students did their practiceteaching.

After preliminary consultations with otherspecialized agencies in May 1968, the reportstated, the World Meteorological Organization,the International Labour Office, the WorldHealth Organization and the International CivilAviation Organization had provided informa-tion about training facilities in Africa in theirrespective fields.

In March 1968, as a result of continuing

consultations, a working relationship had beenestablished between the Secretariat of theUnited Nations and the Bureau for Placementand Education of Refugees set up by theOrganization of African Unity.

The Secretary-General recalled that in its1967 resolution the Assembly had requested thathe include in the Programme the granting ofsubventions to educational and training institu-tions in Africa in order to enable those insti-tutions to provide places for persons who cameunder the Programme and to make it possiblefor those persons to be trained in Africa as faras practical. The President of the General As-sembly, the report stated, had not been ableto finalize the composition of a committee ofrepresentatives of seven Member States whichwould advise the Secretary-General on thegranting of such subventions.

CONSIDERATION BY

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Discussion of the Programme was held mainlyin the General Assembly's Fourth Committeewhich had before it a draft resolution sponsoredby Algeria, Burundi, the Democratic Republicof the Congo, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, India,Iran, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger,Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Senegal, Sweden,Tunisia, Upper Volta and Yugoslavia. By theoperative part of the text, the General Assem-bly would, among other things: (1) appeal toall States, organizations and individuals to makegenerous contributions to the United NationsEducational and Training Programme forSouthern Africa; (2) request the Secretary-General to establish an Advisory Committee onthe Programme, composed of representatives ofMember States, to advise him: (a) on thestrengthening and expansion of the Programme,including, in particular, the promoting of con-tributions; ( b ) on the granting of subventionsto educational and training institutions in Africain order to enable them to provide places forpersons who came under the Programme; and(c) on any other matters concerning the Pro-gramme on which the Secretary-General mightseek advice; and (3) decide that as a furthertransitional measure provision should be madeunder the regular 1969 budget of the United


Nations for $100,000 to ensure the continuityof the Programme pending the receipt of ade-quate voluntary contributions.

The draft resolution was approved by theFourth Committee on 16 December 1968 by 89votes to 1, with 1 abstention. On 18 December,

the General Assembly adopted the draft by arecorded vote of 115 to 2, with 1 abstention, asresolution 2431 (XXIII). (For voting detailsand text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARYREFERENCES below.)

(Sec also pp. 125, 786-87 and 801-02.)

TABLE I. UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL AND TRAINING PROGRAMMEFOR SOUTHERN AFRICA

APPLICATIONS AND AWARDS(1 January-30 September 1968)

Applications receivedAwards grantedAwards extendedAwards to be made if funds become availableAwards to be extended if funds become availableAwards already in use

Total

5741122015863

390

Namibia

61271010

33

SouthAfrica

30359

1152363

214

SouthernRhodesia

90122

10

12

PortugueseTerritories

120147415

131

Country

CambodiaCyprusDenmarkGabonGreeceIrelandItaly

JamaicaJapanLibyaNorwaySweden

TurkeyUgandaUnited KingdomUnited Republic of TanzaniaUnited States

TOTAL

Pledged

1,000476

80,000408b

3,5003,500

12,500b

12,500840

20,0005,000

43,00780,000c

80,0005,0001,400

100,0003,781

25,000

477,912

Paid

—476

80,000—3,0003,500——

84020,000

—43,00780,000c

——1,400—

98025,000

258,203

Balance

1,000——

408500

——

25,000——5,000——

80,0005,000—

100,0002,801—

219,709

Note: In addition, offers of assistance in the form of scholarships for study in their respective countries werereceived from Canada, Czechoslovakia, India, Pakistan and Romania.

a Including contributions pledged in prior years to the educational and training programme for South Africansand still outstanding as of 1 January 1968.

b Pledged before 1 January 1968 to the educational and training programme for South Africans.c Pledged before 1 January 1968 to the educational and training programme for South Africans and paid in

June 1968.

TABLE II. CONTRIBUTIONS PLEDGED AND PAID

(1 January-5 December 1968)a

(U.S. dollars)


DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

IMPLEMENTATION OF DECLARATION

CONSIDERATION BYSPECIAL COMMITTEESpecial Committee on Situation with regard to Im-

plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,meetings 573-651.

Sub-Committee on Petitions, meetings 122-137.A/AC.109/L.447, L.448, L.450, L.461, L.466, L.467,

L.472, L.477, L.480, L.484, L.488, L.489, L.493,L.500, L.522, L.527. Reports (119-134) of Sub-Committee on Petitions.

DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTSFinal Act of International Conference on Human

Rights, Teheran, 22 April-13 May 1968 (A/CONF.32/41), Chapter III, resolution VIII.U.N.P. Sales No.: E.68.XIV.2.

CONSIDERATION BY ECONOMICAND SOCIAL COUNCIL

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL—45TH SESSIONPlenary Meetings 1552, 1553, 1555, 1558, 1559.

E/4546. Implementation of Declaration on Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoplesby specialized agencies and international institu-tions associated with United Nations. Note bySecretary-General (transmitting extracts from rele-vant resolutions adopted by General Assembly at its22nd session).

E/4547. Report of President of Council.E/4557 and Corr.1. Development and co-ordination

of activities of organizations within United Nationssystem. Report of Chairmen of Committee for Pro-gramme and Co-ordination and AdministrativeCommittee on Co-ordination on their joint meet-ings, Bucharest, Romania, 3-5 July 1968, sectionIIIA.

E/4561. Resolutions adopted by Economic and SocialCouncil during its 45th session, 8 July-2 August1968, p. 23.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL——45TH SESSION (RE-

SUMED)

Plenary Meeting 1568.

E/4603 (A/C.4/714). Implementation of Declara-tion on Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples by specialized agencies and inter-national institutions associated with United Nations.Communication of 15 November 1968 fromDirector-General of International Labour Office toSecretary-General.

E/4604 (A/C.4/716). Letter of 19 November 1968from Director-General of United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) to Secretary-General (transmitting textof two resolutions adopted by General Conferenceof UNESCO on 15 November 1968, meeting 37).

E/4561/Add. 1. Resolutions adopted by Economicand Social Council during its resumed 45th session,30 and 31 October, 1, 19 and 20 November, and5, 6, 18 and 19 December 1968, p. 3.

CONSIDERATION BYGENERAL ASSEMBLY

GENERAL ASPECTS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY—23RD SESSIONFifth Committee, meeting 1293.Plenary Meetings 1707, 1708, 1742-1744, 1746, 1747,

1749, 1751, 1752.

A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee on Situ-ation with regard to Implementation of Declara-tion on Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples (Special Committee ofTwenty-four) covering its work during 1968.

A/L.560. Afghanistan, Algeria, Congo (Brazzaville),Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Rwanda, So-malia, Southern Yemen, Syria, United ArabRepublic, United Republic of Tanzania, UpperVolta: draft resolution.

A/L.560/Rev.l. Afghanistan, Algeria, Congo (Braz-zaville), Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria,Rwanda, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Syria, UnitedArab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, UpperVolta: revised draft resolution.

A/L.561 and Add.l. Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, Ro-mania, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yemen: amendmentto 14-power revised draft resolution, A/L.560/Rev.l.

A/L.563. Ethiopia, India, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast,Madagascar, Niger, Sierra Leone, Yugoslavia:amendments to 14-power revised draft resolution,A/L.560/Rev.l.

A/C.5/1223, A/7459. Administrative and financialimplications of proposals in 14-power draft resolu-tion, A/L.560. Statement by Secretary-General andreport of Fifth Committee.

A/C.5/1229. Documentation and records of SpecialCommittee of Twenty-four. Note by Secretary-General.

RESOLUTION 2465(xxiii), as proposed by 14 powers,A/L.560/Rev.l, and as amended by 10 powers,A/L.561 and Add.l, and by 9 powers, A/L.563,adopted (after adoption of operative paragraph 16,as amended, by 84 votes to 3, with 26 abstentions)by Assembly on 20 December 1968, meeting 1751,by 87 votes to 7, with 17 abstentions.

The General Assembly,Recalling the Declaration on the Granting of Inde-

pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples containedin its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960,


Recalling its resolutions 1654(XVI) of 27 Novem-ber 1961, 1810(XVII) of 17 December 1962, 1956(XVIII) of 11 December 1963, 1970(XVIII) of 16December 1963, 2105(XX) of 20 December 1965,2189(XXI) of 13 December 1966 and 2326(XXII)of 16 December 1967,

Recalling also its resolutions 2288(XXII) of 7December 1967 and 2425(XXIII) of 18 December1968 concerning the item entitled "Activities of foreigneconomic and other interests which are impeding theimplementation of the Declaration on the Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoplesin Southern Rhodesia, Namibia and Territories underPortuguese domination and in all other Territoriesunder colonial domination and efforts to eliminatecolonialism, apartheid and racial discrimination insouthern Africa,"

Recalling further its resolutions 2311 (XXII) of 14December 1967 and 2426 (XXIII) of 18 December1968 concerning the implementation of the Declara-tion on the Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples by the specialized agencies andthe international institutions associated with theUnited Nations,

Taking into account the Final Act of the Interna-tional Conference on Human Rights, held at Teheranfrom 22 April to 13 May 1968,

Noting with grave concern that eight years afterthe adoption of the Declaration many Territories arestill under colonial domination,

Deploring the failure of those colonial Powers, es-pecially Portugal and South Africa, which have notcomplied with the Declaration and relevant resolutionson the question of decolonization, particularly thoserelating to the Territories under Portuguese domina-tion, Southern Rhodesia and Namibia, and gravelyconcerned about the attitude of those Member Stateswhich have not fully co-operated in the implemen-tation of the above-mentioned resolutions,

Bearing in mind that the continuation of colonialismand its manifestations, including racism and apartheid,and the attempts of some colonial Powers to suppressnational liberation movements by repressive activitiesagainst colonial peoples are incompatible with theCharter of the United Nations, the Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights and the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples,

Deploring the attitude of certain States which, indisregard of the pertinent resolutions of the SecurityCouncil, the General Assembly and the Special Com-mittee on the Situation with regard to the Implemen-tation of the Declaration on the Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, continueto co-operate with the Governments of Portugal andSouth Africa and with the illegal racist minorityrégime in Southern Rhodesia, which are continuingto repress the African peoples,

Gravely concerned about the development in south-ern Africa of the entente between the Governmentsof Portugal and South Africa and the illegal racistminority régime in Southern Rhodesia, the activitiesof which endanger international peace and security,

Convinced that further delay in the speedy andeffective implementation of the Declaration remainsa source of international conflicts and differences,which are seriously impeding international co-opera-tion and endangering world peace and security,

Stressing once again the need to give widespreadand continuous publicity to the work of the UnitedNations in the field of decolonization, to the situationin the colonial Territories and to the continuingstruggle for liberation being waged by the colonialpeoples,

Recalling that the year 1970 will be the tenthanniversary of the adoption of the Declaration,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 1514(XV) and all itsother resolutions on the question of decolonization;

2. Notes with satisfaction the work accomplishedby the Special Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples and expresses its appreciation to the SpecialCommittee for its efforts to secure the complete andeffective implementation of the Declaration;

3. Approves the report of the Special Committeecovering its work during 1968, including the pro-gramme of work envisaged by the Committee during1969, and urges the administering Powers to giveeffect to the recommendations contained in that reportfor the speedy implementation of the Declarationand the relevant United Nations resolutions;

4. Reiterates its declaration that the continuationof colonial rule threatens international peace andsecurity and that the practice of apartheid and allforms of racial discrimination constitute a crimeagainst humanity;

5. Reaffirms its recognition of the legitimacy ofthe struggle of the colonial peoples to exercise theirright to self-determination and independence, noteswith satisfaction the progress made in the colonialTerritories by the national liberation movements, boththrough their struggle and through reconstructionprogrammes, and urges all States to provide moraland material assistance to them;

6. Urges all States to comply strictly with theprovisions of the various resolutions of the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council concerning thecolonial Territories, and in particular to give thenecessary moral, political and material support to thepeoples of those Territories in their legitimate struggleto achieve freedom and independence;

7. Requests all States, as well as the specializedagencies and international institutions, to withholdassistance of any kind from the Governments of Por-tugal and South Africa and from the illegal racistminority régime in Southern Rhodesia until they re-nounce their policy of colonial domination and racialdiscrimination;

8. Declares that the practice of using mercenariesagainst movements for national liberation and inde-pendence is punishable as a criminal act and thatthe mercenaries themselves are outlaws, and calls uponthe Governments of all countries to enact legislationdeclaring the recruitment, financing and training ofmercenaries in their territory to be a punishable


offense and prohibiting their nationals from servingas mercenaries;

9. Requests the colonial Powers to dismantle theirmilitary bases and installations in colonial Territoriesand to refrain from establishing new ones and fromusing those that still exist to interfere with the liber-ation of the peoples in colonial Territories in theexercise of their legitimate rights to freedom andindependence ;

10. Once again condemns the policies, pursued bycertain colonial Powers in the Territories under theirdomination, of imposing non-representative regimesand constitutions, strengthening the position of foreigneconomic and other interests, misleading world publicopinion and encouraging the systematic influx of for-eign immigrants while displacing, deporting and trans-ferring the indigenous inhabitants to other areas,and calls upon those Powers to desist from suchmanoeuvres ;

11. Requests the Special Committee to continueto perform its task and to seek suitable means for theimmediate and full implementation of the Declarationin all Territories which have not yet attained inde-pendence;

12. Requests the Special Committee to make con-crete suggestions which could assist the SecurityCouncil in considering appropriate measures under theCharter of the United Nations with regard to develop-ments in colonial Territories, which are likely tothreaten international peace and security, and recom-mends the Council to take such suggestions fully intoconsideration;

13. Requests the Special Committee to continueto examine the compliance of Member States with theDeclaration and with other relevant resolutions on thequestion of decolonization, particularly those relatingto the Territories under Portuguese domination,Southern Rhodesia and Namibia, and to report thereonto the General Assembly at its twenty-fourth session;

14. Invites the Special Committee to pay particu-lar attention to the small Territories and to recom-mend to the General Assembly the most appropriatemethods and also the steps to be taken to enable thepopulations of those Territories to exercise fully theirright to self-determination and independence;

15. Urges the administering Powers to co-operatewith the Special Committee by permitting the accessof visiting missions to the colonial Territories in ac-cordance with decisions previously taken by the Gen-eral Assembly and by the Special Committee;

16. Decides to establish a Preparatory Committeefor the Tenth Anniversary of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples, consisting of the members of the SpecialCommittee and six other members to be nominatedby the President of the General Assembly in consul-tation with the Chairman of the Special Committee,and requests the Preparatory Committee to prepare aspecial programme of activities in connexion with thetenth anniversary of the adoption of the Declarationwith a view to finding further ways and means ofexpediting the achievement of the objectives set

forth in the Declaration, and to report to the GeneralAssembly at its twenty-fourth session;

17. Requests the Secretary-General, having regardto the suggestions of the Special Committee, to takeconcrete measures through all the media at his dis-posal, including publications, radio and television, togive widespread and continuous publicity to the workof the United Nations in the field of decolonization,to the situation in the colonial Territories and to thecontinuing struggle for liberation being waged by thecolonial peoples;

18. Requests the administering Powers to co-oper-ate with the Secretary-General in promoting the large-scale dissemination of information on the work of theUnited Nations in the implementation of the Decla-ration;

19. Requests the Secretary-General to provide allthe facilities necessary for the implementation of thepresent resolution.

A/7486. Note by Secretary-General.

IMPLEMENTATION BY

SPECIALIZED AGENCIES AND

OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY——23RD SESSION

Fourth Committee, meetings 1766, 1791, 1792, 1794,1802, 1807-1809, 1812, 1814.


A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee ofTwenty-four (covering its work during 1968),Chapter I, section XII, and Chapter III.

A/7203. Report of Economic and Social Council toGeneral Assembly, Chapter XVI, section C.

A/7203/Add.l. Addendum to report of Economicand Social Council to General Assembly, ChapterVII, section A.

A/7301. Implementation of Declaration on Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples by specialized agencies and international insti-tutions associated with United Nations. Report ofSecretary-General.

A/C.4/714 (E/4603). Letter of 15 November 1968from Director-General of International LabourOffice.

A/C.4/716 (E/4604). Letter of 19 November 1968from Director-General of UNESCO (transmittingtext of two resolutions adopted by General Con-ference of UNESCO on 15 November 1968, meet-ing 37).

A/C.4/718. Note by Secretariat.A/C.4/L.917 and Add.1,2. Algeria, Bulgaria, Demo-

cratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea,India, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Mauri-tania, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda,Senegal, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tunisia, United ArabRepublic, United Republic of Tanzania, UpperVolta, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia: draft resolu-tion, as amended, approved by Fourth Committeeon 13 December 1968, meeting 1812, by roll-callvote of 79 to 5, with 19 abstentions, as follows:


In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Barbados, Bul-garia, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cam-eroon, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia,Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Con-go, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia,Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guy-ana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia,Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Ivory Coast, Jamaica,Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mada-gascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Mo-rocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Philip-pines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia,Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan,Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tu-nisia, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United ArabRepublic, United Republic of Tanzania, UpperVolta, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: Brazil, Portugal, South Africa, UnitedKingdom, United States.Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bel-gium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland,Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,Panama, Peru, Spain, Sweden, Turkey.

A/C.4/L.921. USSR: amendment to 27-power draftresolution, A/C.4/L.917.

A/7424. Report of Fourth Committee on implementa-tion of Declaration on Granting of Independenceto Colonial Countries and Peoples by specializedagencies and international institutions associatedwith the United Nations, and on report of Economicand Social Council.

A/7446. Note by Secretary-General (transmittingcommunication dated 17 December 1968 from In-ternational Bank for Reconstruction and Develop-ment) .

RESOLUTION 2426(xxiii), as proposed by Fourth Com-mittee, A/7424, adopted as a whole (after adoption,by recorded vote, of sixth preambular paragraph,by 58 to 4, with 48 abstentions; of operative para-graph 4, by 58 to 10, with 42 abstentions; and ofoperative paragraph 5, by 36 to 31, with 43 absten-tions) by Assembly on 18 December 1968, meeting1747, by recorded vote of 82 to 7, with 25 absten-tions, as follows :

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Barbados, Bo-livia, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR,Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic,Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, DemocraticRepublic of Congo, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Da-homey, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala,Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia,Iran, Iraq, Israel, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan,Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Ma-laysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mon-golia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Panama,Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, SaudiArabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia,Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo,

Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, UkrainianSSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Repub-lic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Yemen,Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: Brazil, Costa Rica, Honduras, Portugal,South Africa, United Kingdom, United States.Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bel-gium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece,Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mal-awi, Maldive Islands, Netherlands, New Zealand,Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Spain, Swaziland,Sweden, Turkey.

The General Assembly,Having considered the item entitled "Implementa-

tion of the Declaration on the Granting of Independ-ence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by the spe-cialized agencies and the international institutionsassociated with the United Nations,"

Recalling the Declaration on the Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples containedin General Assembly resolution 1514(XV) of 14 De-cember 1960,

Recalling its resolution 2311 (XXII) of 14 Decem-ber 1967 and other relevant General Assembly reso-lutions,

Taking into account the relevant reports submittedby the Secretary-General, the Economic and SocialCouncil and the Special Committee on the Situationwith regard to the Implementation of the Declarationon the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples concerning the implementation of theDeclaration by the specialized agencies and interna-tional institutions associated with the United Nations,

Bearing in mind that the national liberation move-ments in several colonial Territories, and particularlyin Africa, require the urgent assistance of the special-ized agencies, especially in the field of education,health and nutrition, in their struggle to attain free-dom and independence,

Noting with regret that some of the specializedagencies and international institutions associated withthe United Nations, and in particular the Interna-tional Bank for Reconstruction and Development andthe International Monetary Fund, have not so far im-plemented General Assembly resolution 2311 (XXII)and other relevant resolutions,

Considering that, by virtue of the Charter of theUnited Nations, in particular Chapters IX and X, theUnited Nations shall make recommendations for theco-ordination of the policies and activities of the spe-cialized agencies,

1. Reiterates its appeal to the specialized agencies,the International Atomic Energy Agency and the in-ternational institutions associated with the UnitedNations to extend their full co-operation to the UnitedNations in the achievement of the objectives and pro-visions of General Assembly resolution 1514(XV) andother relevant resolutions ;

2. Expresses its appreciation to the Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees andto those specialized agencies and the international


institutions which have co-operated with the UnitedNations in the implementation of the relevant GeneralAssembly resolutions;

3. Recommends that the specialized agencies andinternational institutions concerned should assist thepeoples struggling for their liberation from colonialrule and, in particular, should work out, within thescope of their respective activities and in co-operationwith the Organization of African Unity and, throughit, with the national liberation movements, concreteprogrammes for assisting the oppressed peoples ofSouthern Rhodesia, Namibia and the Territories underPortuguese domination;

4. Appeals once again to all the specialized agen-cies and international institutions, and in particularthe International Bank for Reconstruction and Devel-opment and International Monetary Fund, to take allnecessary steps to withhold from the Governments ofPortugal and South Africa financial, economic, tech-nical and other assistance until they renounce theirpolicies of racial discrimination and colonial domina-tion;

5. Recommends that the International Bank forReconstruction and Development should withdraw theloans and credits it has granted to the Governments ofPortugal and South Africa, which are being used bythose Governments to suppress the national liberationmovement in the Portuguese colonies and in Namibia,and against the African population of South Africa;

6. Requests all States, through action in the spe-cialized agencies and international institutions ofwhich they are members, to facilitate the full andspeedy implementation of the relevant General Assem-bly resolutions ;

7. Requests the Economic and Social Council toconsider, in consultation with the Special Committeeon the Situation with regard to the Implementationof the Declaration on the Granting of Independenceto Colonial Countries and Peoples, appropriate meas-ures for the co-ordination of the policies and activitiesof the specialized agencies in implementing the rele-vant General Assembly resolutions ;

8. Invites the Secretary-General :(a) To continue to assist the specialized agencies

and international institutions concerned in workingout apropriate measures for implementing the rele-vant General Assembly resolutions and to reportthereon to the Assembly at its twenty-fourth session;

(b) To obtain and transmit to the Special Com-mittee for its consideration concrete suggestions fromthe specialized agencies and international institutionsconcerned regarding the best ways and means ofachieving the full and speedy implementation of therelevant resolutions;

9. Requests the Special Committee to continue toexamine the question and to report to the GeneralAssembly at its twenty-fourth session.

APPOINTMENTS TO FILL VACANCIES

A/7288. Letter of 24 September 1968 from Chile.A/7289. Letter of 21 October 1968 from President of

General Assembly.A/7329. Letter of 7 November 1968 from Finland.

A/7218. Resolutions adopted by General Assemblyduring its 23rd session, 24 September-21 December1968, p. 7.

OTHER DOCUMENTS

A/7127. Letter of 31 May 1968 from United ArabRepublic (transmitting text of addresses by Chair-man of African Group, President of General Assem-bly and Secretary-General delivered at meeting ofOrganization of African Unity to observe AfricaDay, 27 May 1968).

A/7319. Letter of 8 November 1968 from Bulgaria(transmitting "Statement of Government of Ger-man Democratic Republic").

A/7480. Letter of 21 December 1968 from France,United Kingdom and United States.

A/7484. Note verbale of 14 January 1969 fromBulgaria.

A/7489. Note verbale of 30 January 1969 fromMongolia.

A/7494. Letter of 12 March 1969 from Romania.

ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGNECONOMIC AND OTHER INTERESTS

Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, meet-ings 594, 646-648.


Fourth Committee, meetings 1766, 1791, 1792, 1794-1802, 1807, 1808, 1812, 1814.


A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee ofTwenty-four (covering its work during 1968),Chapter IV.

A/7320 and Add.l. Activities of foreign economicand other interests which are impeding implementa-tion of Declaration on Granting of Independenceto Colonial Countries and Peoples in SouthernRhodesia, Namibia and territories under Portu-guese domination and in all other territories undercolonial domination and efforts to eliminate coloni-alism, apartheid and racial discrimination in south-ern Africa. Report of Special Committee on Situa-tion with regard to Implementation of Declarationon Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples.

A/C.4/L.916 and Add.1-3. Algeria, Democratic Re-public of Congo, Ghana, Guinea, India, Jamaica,Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria,Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan,Syria, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Republic, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yemen, Yugo-slavia, Zambia: draft resolution, as orally revisedby sponsors, approved by Fourth Committee on 13December 1968, meeting 1812, by roll-call vote of89 to 2, with 17 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bar-bados, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelo-russian SSR, Cambodia, Cameroon, Ceylon, Chad,


Chile, China, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), Dem-ocratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia,Dahomey, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equator-ial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Gua-temala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hun-gary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel,Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Leba-non, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mal-dive Islands, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia,Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Pan-ama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda,Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore,Somalia, Southern Yemen, Spain, Sudan, Syria,Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Re-public, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta,Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: Portugal, South Africa.Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil,Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland,Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden,United Kingdom, United States.

A/7423. Report of Fourth Committee.

RESOLUTION 2425(xxiii), as proposed by Fourth Com-mittee, A/7423, adopted by Assembly on 18 De-cember 1968, meeting 1747, by recorded vote of87 to 2, with 19 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bar-bados, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelo-russian SSR, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central AfricanRepublic, Ceylon, Chad, China, Colombia, Demo-cratic Republic of Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus,Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Dominican Republic,Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia,Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hon-duras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Is-rael, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya,Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia,Maldive Islands, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius,Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, Pan-ama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania,Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sing-apore, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Spain, Sudan,Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tu-nisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR,United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tan-zania, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia.Against: Portugal, South Africa.Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil,Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland,Ireland,* Italy, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

* Subsequently the delegation of Ireland informedthe Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.

The General Assembly,Raving considered the item entitled "Activities of

foreign economic and other interests which are imped-ing the implementation of the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples in Southern Rhodesia, Namibia and Territor-

ies under Portuguese domination and in all other Ter-ritories under colonial domination and efforts to elim-inate colonialism, apartheid and racial discriminationin southern Africa,"

Having examined the report of the Special Com-mittee on the Situation with regard to the Implemen-tation of the Declaration on the Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relatingto this question,

Recalling its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December1960 containing the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, inparticular the eighth preambular paragraph thereof,and its resolution 2288(XXII) of 7 December 1967,

Convinced that any economic or other activity whichimpedes the implementation of resolution 1514(XV)and which obstructs efforts aimed at the eliminationof colonialism, apartheid and racial discrimination insouthern Africa and other colonial Territories is in-compatible with the purposes and principles of theCharter of the United Nations,

Recalling that the administering Powers have theobligation to ensure the political, economic, social andeducational advancement of the inhabitants of theTerritories under their administration and to protectthe population and the natural resources of theseTerritories against abuses, in accordance with Chap-ters XI and XII of the Charter,

1. Approves the report of the Special Committeeon the Situation with regard to the Implementation ofthe Declaration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples relating to this ques-tion;

2. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples ofdependent Territories to self-determination and inde-pendence and to the natural resources of their Ter-ritories, as well as their right to dispose of theseresources in their best interest ;

3. Declares that any administering Power, by de-priving the colonial peoples of the exercise of theserights or by subordinating them to foreign economicand financial interests, violates the obligations it hasassumed under Chapters XI and XII of the Charterof the United Nations and impedes the implementa-tion of General Assembly resolution 1514(XV);

4. Condemns the exploitation of the colonial Ter-ritories and peoples and the methods practised in theTerritories under colonial domination by those foreigneconomic, financial and other interests which aredesigned to perpetuate colonial rule;

5. Deplores those policies of the administeringPowers aimed at encouraging the systematic inflowof foreign immigrants to colonial Territories whichjeopardize the rights and interests of the colonialpeoples of these Territories;

6. Deplores the refusal of the States concerned toimplement the provisions of paragraphs 7, 8 and 10of General Assembly resolution 2288(XXII) ;

7. Requests the administering Powers to take im-mediate measures to put an end to all practices whichexploit the Territories and peoples under their ad-ministration and consequently violate the political,economic and social rights of the peoples;


8. Requests all States to take practical measures toensure that the activities of their nationals involvedin economic, financial and other concerns in depend-ent Territories do not run counter to the rights andinterests of the colonial peoples, in conformity with theobjectives of General Assembly resolution 1514(XV)and other relevant resolutions;

9. Requests the Special Committee to continue tostudy this question and to report thereon to the Gen-eral Assembly at its twenty-fourth session;

10. Requests the Secretary-General to use all thefacilities at his disposal to render assistance to theSpecial Committee in the pursuit of this study.

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONALAND TRAINING PROGRAMMEFOR SOUTHERN AFRICA

GENERAI, ASSEMBLY——22ND SESSION (RESUMED)


A/7062. Question of consolidation and integration ofspecial educational and training programmes forSouth West Africa, special training programme forterritories under Portuguese administration and ed-ucational and training programme for South Af-ricans. Letter of 21 September 1968 from Presidentof General Assembly.

A/6716/Add.l. Resolutions adopted by General As-sembly during its 22nd session, 24 April-12 Juneand 23 September 1968, Vol. II, p. 3.


Fourth Committee, meetings 1766, 1791, 1792, 1794-1802, 1812, 1814.

Fifth Committee, meeting 1291.Plenary Meeting 1747.

A/7284 and Add.l. United Nations training and edu-cational programme. Report of Secretary-General.

A/7338 and Corr.1. Report of United Nations Coun-cil for Namibia, Chapter II D.

A/C.4/L.922 and Add. 1,2. Algeria, Burundi, Demo-cratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Finland,Ghana, India, Iran, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moroc-co, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Senegal, Swe-den, Tunisia, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia: draft reso-lution, approved by Fourth Committee on 16 De-cember 1968, meeting 1814, by 89 votes to 1, with1 abstention.

A/C.5/1219, A/7439. Administrative and financialimplications of draft resolution proposed by FourthCommittee, A/7425. Statement by Secretary-Gen-eral and report of Fifth Committee.


RESOLUTION 2431(xxiii), as submitted by FourthCommittee, A/7425, adopted by Assembly on 18December 1968, meeting 1747, by recorded vote of115 to 2, with 1 abstention, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina,Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Bra-zil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR,

Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central AfricanRepublic, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia,Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Con-go, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark,Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equa-torial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Ghana,Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hon-duras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran,Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica,Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho,Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi,Malaysia, Maldive Islands, Mali, Mauritania, Mau-ritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nether-lands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pak-istan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland,Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, SierraLeone, Singapore, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Spain,Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo,Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic,United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania,United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela,Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: Portugal, South Africa.Abstaining: France.

The General Assembly,Recalling its resolution 2349(XXII) of 19 Decem.

ber 1967 by which the special educational and trainingprogrammes for South West Africa, the special train-ing programme for Territories under Portuguese ad-ministation and the educational and training pro-gramme for South Africans were consolidated andintegrated, and its resolution 2372(XXII) of 12 June1968 on the question of Namibia,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General,

Recalling paragraph 14 of its resolution 2395(XXIII) of 29 November 1968 concerning the ques-tion of the Territories under Portuguese administra-tion, in which it invited the Secretary-General to de-velop and expand training programmes for inhabitantsof these Territories, and chapter II, section D, of thereport of the United Nations Council for Namibia,

Noting with concern that the voluntary contribu-tions in 1968 have been inadequate and sharing theSecretary-General's concern over the future of theUnited Nations Educational and Training Programmefor Southern Africa,

Strongly convinced that the provision of assistancefor the education and training of persons from theTerritories concerned is essential and that it is there-fore desirable to strengthen and expand the Pro-gramme,

1. Appeals to all States, organizations and indi-viduals to make generous contributions to the UnitedNations Educational and Training Programme forSouthern Africa;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to establish anAdvisory Committee on the United Nations Educa-tional and Training Programme for Southern Africacomposed of representatives of Member States toadvise him:


(a) On the strengthening and expansion of theProgramme, including, in particular, the promotingof contributions ;

(b) On the granting of subventions to educationaland training institutions in Africa in order to enablethem to provide places for persons who come underthis Programme;

(c) On any other matters concerning the Pro-gramme on which the Secretary-General may seekadvice ;

3. Decides that as a further transitional measureprovision shall be made under section 12 of the regularbudget for the financial year 1969 of an amount of$100,000 to ensure the continuity of the Programmepending the receipt of adequate voluntary contribu-tions;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to theGeneral Assembly at its twenty-fourth session on theprogress of the Programme.

QUESTIONS CONCERNING INDIVIDUAL TERRITORIES

The consideration in 1968 of the situation invarious individual territories by the GeneralAssembly's Special Committee on the Situationwith regard to the Implementation of theDeclaration on the Granting of Independenceto Colonial Countries and Peoples, and by theGeneral Assembly, is described in the sectionswhich follow. For details on questions concern-ing Southern Rhodesia, see pp. 125-58; for

Namibia (South West Africa),21 pp. 766-90; forterritories under Portuguese administration, pp.791-804; for Papua and the Trust Territory ofNew Guinea, pp. 686-95; and for the TrustTerritory of the Pacific Islands, pp. 695-702.

21 On 12 June 1968, with the adoption of resolution2372(XXIII), the General Assembly proclaimed thatSouth West Africa should henceforth be known asNamibia.

Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea, administered by Spain un-til its independence on 12 October 1968, wasadmitted to United Nations membership on 12November 1968. It consists of Fernando Póo—an island of the same name together with thesmaller island of Annobón in the Gulf of Guinea—and Rio Muni—an area on the African main-land, bordered by Cameroon on the north andby Gabon on the south and east, along withseveral small islands off the coast. In 1966, thetotal population of Equatorial Guinea was esti-mated at 260,000.

By a resolution adopted on 19 December1967,22 the General Assembly reiterated its re-quest to Spain to ensure that the territoryacceded to independence as a single political andterritorial entity not later than July 1968, andspelled out certain modalities to be followed inorder to ensure an orderly and peaceful transferof power. Among other measures, it requestedthe Secretary-General to ensure the presence ofthe United Nations in the territory for the super-vision of general elections before independence.


The situation in Equatorial Guinea was con-sidered by the General Assembly's 24-member

Special Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration onthe Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples at meetings held between1 March and 1 April 1968 and between 30April and 19 July 1968.

The representative of Spain informed theSpecial Committee that the second phase of theConstitutional Conference on the future ofEquatorial Guinea — its first phase having takenplace in Madrid, Spain, from 30 October to 15November 1967 — would be convened immedi-ately to consider the new political structure ofthe territory and to establish the basis for co-operation between Spain and the new State ofEquatorial Guinea. In the meantime, new elec-tions scheduled to take place under the existingrégime of autonomy had been suspended, andthe terms of office of the existing elected officialswere being extended until the new political stat-ute of Equatorial Guinea was finally approvedduring the second phase of the ConstitutionalConference. The people of Equatorial Guineawould be given an opportunity to express theirviews on the final results of the Constitutional

22 See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 657-58, text of resolution2355 (XXII).


Conference in an "electoral consultation" whichthe United Nations would be asked to supervise.

The Special Committee heard statements bytwo petitioners: Saturnino Ibongo lyango, rep-resenting the Movimiento Nacional de Libera-ción de la Guinea Ecuatorial (MONALIGE),and Francisco Salome Jones, representing theJoint Guinean Secretariat of the ConstitutionalConference on Equatorial Guinea. They ex-pressed concern at the long delay between theend of the first phase of the Constitutional Con-ference—which, they said, had been mysteri-ously suspended on 15 November 1967—and thesecond phase that had only just been announced,but for which a firm date had not yet been set.They suspected delaying tactics on the part ofthe administering power and efforts on the partof Spaniards in influential positions to encour-age the separation of Fernando Poo from RíoMuni.

The petitioners urged that Equatorial Guineabe granted independence not later than 15 July1968 and that the second phase of the Consti-tutional Conference be convoked not later than15 March. They also requested a United Na-tions presence at the Constitutional Conferenceto ensure fair play and to afford, if necessary,technical advice to the Guinean delegation : thiswould be in accordance with the General As-sembly's resolution of 19 December 1967 which,among other things, asked the Secretary-Generalto ensure a United Nations presence in theterritory not only to supervise the general elec-tions prior to independence but also to partici-pate in all other measures leading towards theindependence of the territory. They maintainedthat the Constitutional Conference was clearlyone such measure.

In a second statement to the Committee, therepresentative of Spain declared that his Gov-ernment had decided to convene the secondphase of the Constitutional Conference on 17April. He hoped that the work of the Confer-ence could be concluded in two weeks and thatthe territory could accede to independence byJuly 1968 or even before.

After extensive questioning of both the peti-tioners and the Spanish representative, manymembers of the Special Committee—includingIndia, Mali, the United Republic of Tanzania,Yugoslavia and the USSR—expressed the view

that the last stages of the decolonization process,as outlined by the spokesman for Spain, stillcontained ambiguities that caused suspicion andconcern. They regretted in particular that a spe-cific date for independence had not yet beenfixed, nor had a clear time-table been workedout for holding the "electoral consultation" an-nounced by the Spanish Government. Further-more, the scope, manner and purpose of theelectoral consultation needed to be more clearlydefined.

These and other members insisted that, inorder to abide by the General Assembly's reso-lution of 19 December 1967, the electoral con-sultation should be a general election on thebasis of universal suffrage and a unified elec-toral roll. It should be held before independenceto elect new authorities to whom power wouldbe transferred at independence. The UnitedRepublic of Tanzania and the USSR, amongothers, voiced strong opposition to the Spanishrepresentative's indication that among the mat-ters to be dealt with at the Constitutional Con-ference would be the question of future relationsbetween Equatorial Guinea and Spain. Theymaintained that such a question could be dis-cussed only after Equatorial Guinea hadachieved independence and full sovereignty.

In reply, the representative of Spain said thatthe criticism of his Government's policy con-cerned matters of detail, since it was now clearthat Spain was committed to granting independ-ence to Equatorial Guinea at the earliest possibledate in 1968. The work of the ConstitutionalConference and further modalities—such as thedate and the precise nature of the electoral con-sultation and the final date of independence—were matters that could only be determined bythe Guinean people's representatives themselvesat the Constitutional Conference and could notbe prejudged by him. He did not think that aUnited Nations presence at the ConstitutionalConference would be necessary.

Without doubting the good intentions of theSpanish Government, Mali's representative said,his delegation appealed to it to speed up theprocess of granting independence to EquatorialGuinea so that the territory could attain fullsovereignty by 15 July. A similar view was ex-pressed by Tunisia. The representatives of Chileand Venezuela suggested that as, in their view,

DECLARATION ON INDEPENDENCE FOR COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES 739sufficient clarification had been obtained fromthe representative of Spain, the Special Com-mittee should await the results of the Consti-tutional Conference before proceeding furtherin its discussion.

Subsequently, the Spanish representative an-nounced that Spain had issued a statement on29 March solemnly reaffirming its intention ofgranting independence to Equatorial Guinea asa political unit as soon as possible during 1968,with safeguards for special characteristics of theisland of Fernando Póo. The Spanish Govern-ment confirmed that the second phase of theConstitutional Conference would begin on 17April and its purpose would be to draw up aConstitution and Electoral Law for the terri-tory. Both texts would be submitted to popularconsultation by means of universal suffrage forthe adult population and under the supervisionof the United Nations.

Although this statement was welcomed bysome members of the Special Committee, others—including India, the United Republic of Tan-zania and Yugoslavia—pointed out that it failedto set a specific date for independence not laterthan July 1968. Nor did it mention the holdingof a general election for new authorities to whompower could be transferred. It was still unclearto whom power would be transferred at inde-pendence.

In reply, the representative of Spain explainedthat his Government had not set an exact datefor Equatorial Guinea's accession to independ-ence precisely because it had not wished to im-pose a decision on the people of the territory.When the representatives of the people madetheir decision known, the Spanish Governmentwould gladly accept it.

On 1 April 1968, the Special Committee,acting on a proposal sponsored by Afghanistan,Ethiopia, India, Iran, Iraq, the Ivory Coast,Madagascar, Mali, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tunisia,the United Republic of Tanzania, and Yugo-slavia, adopted a resolution whereby, amongother things, it declared that the administeringpower had not yet fully complied with the pro-visions of General Assembly resolution 2355(XXII) of 19 December 1967. It reaffirmedthat Equatorial Guinea should accede to inde-pendence as a single political and territorial en-tity and called upon the administering power to

proclaim officially without delay the date ofindependence, which should not be later than15 July 1968 in accordance with the wishes ofthe people of Equatorial Guinea and GeneralAssembly resolution 2355(XXII).

The Special Committee further declared that,in conformity with the expressed wishes of thepeople for independence by 15 July 1968, thequestion of accession to independence of Equa-torial Guinea should not be subject to any formof electoral consultation. It urged the adminis-tering power to implement without delay thefollowing measures: (a) to guarantee to thepeople of Equatorial Guinea the full exercise ofall democratic freedoms; (b) to expedite thereconvening of the Constitutional Conferenceto work out the modalities of the transfer ofpower and, in particular, the electoral law; (c)to hold general elections on the basis of uni-versal adult suffrage and a single electoral rollfor the whole territory as might be worked outby the Constitutional Conference; and (d) totransfer all powers to the government resultingfrom this election.

In addition, the administering power wasurged to ensure that the Constitutional Confer-ence concluded its work in time for these neces-sary steps to be carried out, including generalelections before independence, by 15 July 1968.The Secretary-General was asked to proceedwith the necessary action, in consultation withthe administering power and the Special Com-mittee, to ensure the presence of the UnitedNations in the territory for supervising thepreparation for, and the holding of, the envis-aged elections and to participate in all otherprocesses leading towards the independence ofthe territory.

The Special Committee adopted this resolu-tion by 20 votes to 0, with 4 abstentions.

Explaining their abstentions in the vote, therepresentatives of Australia and the UnitedStates said they did not agree that the SpecialCommittee should instruct administering powersas to how they were to conduct the decoloniza-tion process or dictate to them or the peopleinvolved by setting target dates for independ-ence. The United States spokesman consideredthat the resolution limited the right of the peoplethemselves to determine their future. TheFinnish representative said that although he had


voted for the resolution he had similar misgiv-ings: the people, he said, must be consulted atall stages. Both Finland and the United Statesobjected to that provision of the resolution bywhich the Special Committee stated that thequestion of accession to independence shouldnot be subject to any form of electoral consul-tation.

In a letter dated 27 June 1968, Spain in-formed the Secretary-General that the Consti-tutional Conference had concluded its work,having duly drafted a Constitution and electoralprovisions which, once approved by the SpanishCortes, would be submitted for the approval ofthe Guinean people in an electoral consultation.Within two months after such approval, gen-eral elections for President of the Republic,members of the Assembly and members of otherelected bodies would be held in accordance withthe principles contained in the newly draftedConstitution and electoral provisions. TheUnited Nations would be invited to participatein both the electoral consultation on the Con-stitution and the elections to elect new Statebodies. The date for the transfer of powersestablishing the territory's independence wouldbe fixed in agreement with the constitutionalgovernment resulting from the general elections.

Referring to the target date of July 1968 forthe territory's independence called for in rele-vant United Nations resolutions, the letter ex-pressed regret that the Constitutional Confer-ence had not completed its task earlier. Therepresentative of Spain claimed that this wasbecause of the different views expressed by therepresentatives of the Guinean people, the needto harmonize these views and the decision topreserve the unity of the territory while safe-guarding the individuality of the island of Fer-nando Póo. He also claimed that the delay wasbecause of the obstructive tactics adopted by asmall group of participants in the ConstitutionalConference.

Three groups of petitioners were heard by theSpecial Committee at its meetings in July. Thefirst group was headed by Atanasio N'dong,General Secretary of the Movimiento Nacio-nal de Liberation de la Guinea Ecuatorial(MONALIGE) ; the second group, representingthe Joint Guinean Secretariat of the Constitu-tional Conference on Equatorial Guinea, in-

cluded Francisco Macias, Vice-President of theCouncil of the Autonomous Government ofEquatorial Guinea and leader of MONALIGE,Augustin Daniel Grangles, delegate for Eco-nomic Affairs (MONALIGE), José Nsue, Con-troller-General of the Movimiento de UniónNacional de la Guinea Ecuatorial (MUNGE),and Clémente Ateba, General Secretary of theIdea Popular de la Guinea Ecuatorial (IPGE) ;and the third group consisted of EdmundoBosio Dioco, member of the Spanish Corteselected by the heads of families in FernandoPóo, and Laureano Toichoa Boricó, member ofthe Union Bubi of Fernando Póo.

Mr. N'dong supported the draft Constitutionand electoral provisions emanating from theConstitutional Conference held in Madrid. Hebelieved that by its federal character the draftConstitution achieved a necessary compromise;it ensured the political unity and territorialintegrity of the new State and, by grantingprovincial autonomy, met the desire of manyBubis of Fernando Póo for separation. Mr.Macias and other members of his group ob-jected to this formula, claiming that it gaveexcessive autonomy to Fernando Poo; they de-manded a more centralist and unitary consti-tution. Moreover, they said, the Constitutionand electoral provisions had been imposed uponthe Guinean delegation at the ConstitutionalConference by the Spanish authorities, at thelast moment, and did not in any way representtheir wishes. Mr. Dioco rejected the Constitutionoutright and, along with Mr. Boricó, reiteratedprevious Bubi demands for the separation ofFernando Poo from Rio Muni and for theisland's continued association with Spain.

The representative of Spain reiterated hisGovernment's desire that Equatorial Guineashould attain independence as a single politicaland territorial entity in accordance with Gen-eral Assembly decisions. In reply to those whocriticized what they considered to be the Span-ish Government's continued failure to fix a datefor independence and a precise time-table forthe holding of the electoral consultation, heannounced that the Constitution and electoralprovisions would be submitted for approval bythe Spanish Cortes in plenary session on 22 July;the electoral consultation for the adoption ofthe Constitution and electoral provisions would

DECLARATION ON INDEPENDENCE FOR COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES 741be held on 11 August, and the general electionsone month later. He declared further that hisGovernment had decided to accede to the re-quest of the group of petitioners headed by Mr.N'dong that the new State should become inde-pendent on 12 October 1963.

On 19 July, the Special Committee adopteda consensus by which it reaffirmed its resolutionof 1 April 1968 (see above) and regretted thatit had not been possible for the administeringpower to grant independence to EquatorialGuinea not later than July 1968 in accordancewith the Assembly's resolution of 19 December1967. At the same time, the Special Committeenoted the intention of the Spanish Governmentthat the territory should accede to independencenot later than October 1968, and that a refer-endum based on universal adult suffrage wouldbe held in August on the proposed constitutionand electoral law, and general elections on thesame basis during September.

The Special Committee urged that full free-dom of expression and movement should beextended to the people of the territory so as toensure proper conditions for full participationby the people in all constitutional processes lead-ing to the attainment of independence. It ex-pressed the hope that the United Nations pres-ence to be established by the Secretary-Generalunder the terms of the Assembly's resolution of19 December 1967 and the Committee's reso-lution of 1 April 1968 would begin its workwithout delay. In this connexion, it requestedthe administering power to extend to the UnitedNations presence in the territory all the facilitiesnecessary for the discharge of its functions. TheSpecial Committee also considered that no pre-conditions—economic, financial or otherwise—should be imposed on the attainment of inde-pendence by the territory.

Noting with regret that certain differenceshad arisen between some of the political groupsin the territory., the Special Committee urged allconcerned, including the administering power,to contribute to the creation of conditions whichwould facilitate the complete and effective im-plementation of the above-mentioned resolutionsand would enable the territory to accede toindependence in peace and harmony as a singlepolitical and territorial entity.

Reservations on the consensus were expressed

by the delegations of Australia and the UnitedStates with regard to references concerning theSpecial Committee's resolution of 1 April 1968on which their delegations had abstained.

On 6 August 1968, the Secretary-Generalannounced the appointment of a United NationsMission for the Supervision of the Referendumand the Elections in Equatorial Guinea, consist-ing of representatives of Chile, Iran, Niger,Syria and the United Republic of Tanzania. TheMission arrived in the territory on 10 Augustand, having carried out its functions of super-vision of the referendum on 11 August and thegeneral elections on 22 and 29 September, de-parted from the territory on 30 September.

On 9 October, the Chairman of the Missionpresented an oral report to the Special Com-mittee in which he expressed the Mission'sview that it had faithfully and effectively dis-charged its mandate. He noted that the Mis-sion's observation of the conduct of the referen-dum on 11 August had necessarily been restrictedto a small number of the territory's pollingstations due to the limited time available to it;in the case of the general elections, held on 22and 29 September, the Mission was able toconclude that these elections were conducted ina manner in which all democratic freedoms werefully respected and in which the people ofEquatorial Guinea were able freely to choosetheir future leaders. The Mission later sub-mitted a detailed written report describing itsactivities in the territory.


On 11 October 1968, at its twenty-third ses-sion, the General Assembly adopted a consensusof the Members of the Assembly, which hadbeen approved by the Assembly's Fourth Com-mittee on the same day. By this consensus,the Assembly, among other things, took noteof the Special Committee's report on EquatorialGuinea and expressed its appreciation of thework done by the United Nations Mission forthe Supervision of the Referendum and theElections in Equatorial Guinea. The Assemblyalso expressed its appreciation to the adminis-tering power for making it possible for theUnited Nations presence to be established inthe territory, as called for in its resolution of


19 December 1967, and to the Secretary-Generalfor the action taken by him in this regard.

In congratulating the people of the territoryon their achievement and wishing them peaceand prosperity, the General Assembly expressedthe confident hope that the new State would

make a constructive contribution to peace andinternational co-operation.

The independence of Equatorial Guinea wasproclaimed on 12 October 1968 and the newRepublic was admitted to membership of theUnited Nations on 12 November 1968.


Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, meet-ings 579, 582, 583, 586-590, 592-594, 600, 613,614, 616, 618-626.


Fourth Committee, meetings 1760, 1761.Plenary Meeting 1692.

A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee ofTwenty-four (covering its work during 1968).

Chapter IX, part I: Consideration by and deci-sions of Special Committee (containing texts ofresolution and consensus adopted by Special Com-mittee) and Annexes I-V; part II: Annex VI(descriptive account of activities of United NationsMission for Supervision of Referendum and Elec-tions in Equatorial Guinea).


A/7218. Resolutions adopted by General Assemblyduring its 23rd session, 24 September-21 December1968, pp. 65, 66.

Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

The Falkland Islands (Malvinas) are situatedin the South Atlantic, some 480 miles off CapeHorn. The population, almost entirely of Britishorigin, was 2,122 as at 31 December 1967. Theterritory, which is administered by the UnitedKingdom, is claimed by Argentina as an in-tegral part of Argentina.

The economy of the Falkland Islands (Mal-vinas) depends on the wool industry. Nearly allrevenue is derived indirectly from sheep-farming.

The 24-member Special Committee on theSituation with regard to the Implementationof the Declaration on the Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoplesdecided to consider the question of the FalklandIslands (Malvinas) as a separate item at itsplenary meetings in 1968.

In letters dated 26 September 1968 addressedto the Chairman of the Special Committee, thePermanent Representatives of Argentina andthe United Kingdom stated that in accordancewith the General Assembly's resolution of 16December 1965 and its consensuses of 20 De-cember 1966 and 19 December 1967,23 theirGovernments had continued negotiations forthe purpose of reaching a solution to the prob-lem of the dispute over the Islands. They wereproceeding with the talks with a view to reach-ing a peaceful settlement as soon as possible,

and hoped to report on the subject during thecourse of the twenty-third session of the GeneralAssembly.

On 31 October 1968, the Special Committeedecided to transmit to the General Assemblythe working paper on the territory preparedby the United Nations Secretariat, in order tofacilitate consideration of the item by the Assem-bly's Fourth Committee and, subject to anydirectives the Assembly might wish to give inthat connexion, to give consideration to theitem at its next session.

By letters dated 19 December 1968, the Per-manent Representatives of Argentina and theUnited Kingdom informed the twenty-thirdsession of the General Assembly that negotia-tions had continued between their respectiveGovernments for the purpose of reaching asolution to the problem of the dispute overthe Islands. They added that the negotiationshad carried on throughout 1968 and there hadcontinued to be a certain progress towards nar-rowing the area of divergence between the twoGovernments. It was the wish of both Gov-

23 See Y.U.N., 1965, pp. 578-79, text of resolution2065(XX); Y.U.N., 1966, p. 577, text of consensusof 20 December 1966; and Y.U.N., 1967, p. 659,text of consensus of 19 December 1967.


ernments that the discussions should continuein order to enable further progress to be madetowards reaching a peaceful solution as soonas possible, as recommended by the United Na-tions. They hoped to report further on thesubject during the course of 1969.

During the debate in the General Assembly,Argentina reaffirmed its demand for recogni-tion of Argentine sovereignty over the FalklandIslands (Malvinas) and stated that the principleto be applied in this case was not that of theself-determination of peoples but rather that ofnational unity and territorial integrity.

In reply, the United Kingdom stated that ithad no doubt about its sovereignty over theterritory and that no transfer of sovereigntycould be made against the wishes of the in-habitants of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).The representative of the United Kingdom wel-comed a reference made by the Argentine rep-resentative to the atmosphere of respect andconsideration in which the discussions betweenthe two Governments had been carried for-ward.

No action was taken by the General Assemblyat its 1968 session.


Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, meet-ings 594, 646.


Fourth Committee, meetings 1766, 1791, 1795, 1798,1801.

Plenary Meetings 1697, 1744.

A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee ofTwenty-four (covering its work during 1968),Chapter XXX.

A/7278. Letter of 16 October 1968 from UnitedKingdom.

A/7419. Report of Fourth Committee, on territoriesnot considered separately, paras. 4 and 8.

A/7467. Letter of 19 December 1968 from Argentina.A/7468. Letter of 19 December 1968 from United

Kingdom.

FijiFiji, a group of 844 islands and islets situatedin the south-west Pacific, had an estimated pop-ulation of 512,100 at the end of 1968, consistingof 215,000 Fijians, 256,150 persons of Indianorigin and about 41,000 other (Europeans, part-Europeans, Chinese and other Pacific races).Almost 90 per cent of the total land mass of7,055 square miles is contained by the islandsof Viti Levu (4,010 square miles) and VanuaLevu (2,137 square miles). Fiji is administeredby the United Kingdom.

The economy of Fiji is dependent on fourmain industries: sugar, copra, gold mining andtourism, of which sugar is by far the mostimportant.

CONSIDERATION BY SPECIALCOMMITTEE OF TWENTY-FOUR

On 1 April 1968, the General Assembly'sSpecial Committee on the Situation with regardto the Implementation of the Declaration onthe Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-tries and Peoples decided to consider the ques-tion of Fiji at its plenary meetings, it being

understood that the Sub-Committee on Fiji—established pursuant to the Special Committee'sresolution of 7 September 1966 and a GeneralAssembly decision of 12 December 196624 tovisit Fiji for the purpose of studying the situa-tion at first hand and report—would continueits work. The Sub-Committee on Fiji was com-posed of the representatives of Bulgaria, Chile,Finland, India and the United Republic ofTanzania.

The United Kingdom Government had in-formed the Special Committee in 1967 that itdid not regard a visit to Fiji by a sub-committeeas necessary.25 In a letter dated 1 July 1968,the Chairman of the Sub-Committee requestedthe representative of the administering powerto furnish, as soon as possible, information con-cerning the steps taken and/or envisaged byit in implementation of a General Assemblydecision of 19 December 1967, which had,

24 See Y.U.N., 1966, pp. 580-81, text of resolution2185(XXI).25 See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 659-63.


among other things, reaffirmed the necessityof sending a visiting mission to Fiji and ur-gently appealed to the administering power toreconsider its decision in this respect.26 In reply,the Acting Permanent Representative of theUnited Kingdom stated in a letter dated 30July 1968 that his Government regretted thatit had no ground to vary its previous position.

In its report to the Special Committee, theSub-Committee deeply regretted that, owing tothe continued refusal of the administering powerto receive the visiting mission in Fiji, it hadnot been possible to discharge the tasks entrustedto it by the General Assembly and the SpecialCommittee. On 14 October 1968, the SpecialCommittee, at the suggestion of its Chairman,took note of the report and decided to transmitit, together with the working paper on Fiji pre-pared by the Secretariat, to the General Assem-bly at its twenty-third (1968) session. It furtherdecided to consider the question again in 1969,subject to any directives which the GeneralAssembly might give.


During the General Assembly's twenty-thirdsession, discussion of the question took placemainly in the Assembly's Fourth Committee.The representatives of Afghanistan, the Demo-cratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and theUnited Republic of Tanzania expressed thehope that the United Kingdom would change

its position with regard to receiving a visitingmission from the United Nations in Fiji. Sudanalso stated that, in view of the freely expresseddesire of the inhabitants of Fiji to become aunified nation free from racial conflict, it wasregrettable that the administering power hadpromoted the domination of one community,the European, over the others.

The representative of Trinidad and Tobagosaid his country could not agree to the holdingof elections in a territory on any basis otherthan the principle of one man, one vote. Heappealed to the administering power of Fiji toeliminate the communal rolls for the purposeof elections in Fiji and to expedite decoloniza-tion by holding elections on the basis of oneman, one vote and by fixing an early date forindependence.

The representative of India asserted that forthe independence of Fiji to be practicable, anarrangement should be reached which wouldencourage inter-racial co-operation. It appearedthat the principal parties were at present tryingto draw up mutually acceptable constitutionalarrangements.

The Fourth Committee recommended thatconsideration of the question be postponed tothe twenty-fourth session in 1969. On 18 De-cember 1968, the General Assembly adoptedthis recommendation without objection.

26 See Y.U.N., 1967, p. 664, text of resolution 2350(XXII).


Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im- A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee ofTwenty-four (covering its work during 1968),Chapter XVI.

A/7421. Report of Fourth Committee.A/7218. Resolutions adopted by General Assembly

during its 23rd session, 24 September-21 December1968, p. 66.

plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, meet-ings 594, 643.


Fourth Committee, meetings 1766, 1791-1802, 1810,1814.


French Territory of the Afars and the Issas27

The French Territory of the Afars and theIssas,27 which is administered by France as anoverseas territory, lies on the eastern coast ofAfrica at the head of the Gulf of Aden and isbounded by Ethiopia and Somalia. It coversan area of 8,900 square miles (23,000 square

kilometres) with an estimated population of125,000 in 1967.

27 The new name of the territory formerly known as

French Somaliland is "French Territory of the Afarsand the Issas." This designation was introduced inUnited Nations terminology as from 15 April 1968,at the request of the administering power.


A referendum was held in March 1967 inwhich a majority of the voters of the territoryopted in favour of remaining part of the FrenchRepublic. On 3 July 1967, a new statute for theterritory was promulgated by France. This pro-vided for the establishment of an elected Cham-ber of Deputies, which in turn elected a Gov-ernment Council. One of the declared purposesof the statute was to grant a large measure ofautonomy in the administration of the territory'saffairs. The French State, represented by theHigh Commissioner in the territory, had com-petence in all matters not expressly reservedto the organs of the territory. The official nameof the territory, formerly known as FrenchSomaliland, was changed to "French Territoryof the Afars and the Issas."

On 19 December 1967, the General Assemblyadopted a resolution28 whereby, among otherthings, it reaffirmed the inalienable right of thepeople of French Somaliland to self-determina-tion and independence. It also regretted thatthe administering power had not co-operatedwith the United Nations in the application ofthe Assembly's resolution of 14 December 1960on the granting of independence to colonialcountries and peoples29 and had not implementedthe Assembly's resolution of 20 December 1966.30

It then called upon the administering power tocreate the political conditions necessary foraccelerating the implementation of the right

of the people to self-determination and inde-pendence, including the full exercise of politicalfreedoms, and to allow the return of all refugeesto the territory. It urged the administering powerto grant independence to the inhabitants atan early date.

The General Assembly's Special Committeeon the Situation with regard to the Implementa-tion of the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples considered the question at a meeting on31 October 1968 and decided to transmit tothe Assembly a working paper prepared bythe Secretariat, to facilitate consideration ofthe item by the Assembly's Fourth Committee.Subject to any directives which the Assemblymight wish to give, the Special Committeewould consider the matter at its next session.

At the Assembly's twenty-third session, in1968, the Fourth Committee recommended thatconsideration of the item be postponed untilthe twenty-fourth (1969) session. This recom-mendation was adopted by the Assembly on18 December 1968.

28 See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 667-68, text of resolution2356(XXII).

29 See Y.U.N., I960, pp. 49-50, text of resolution1514(XV).

30 See Y.U.N., 1966, pp. 583-84, text of resolution2228(XXI).




Fourth Committee, meetings 1766, 1793.Plenary Meeting 1747.

A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee ofTwenty-four (covering its work during 1968),Chapter XV.

A/7419. Report of Fourth Committee, on territoriesnot considered separately, paras. 10 and 22.

A/7218. Resolutions adopted by General Assemblyduring its 23rd session, 24 September-21 December1968, p. 66.

Gibraltar

Gibraltar, administered by the United Kingdom,covers an area of 2¼ square miles, with a pop-ulation estimated at the end of 1967 at 25,281,of whom 19,242 were Gibraltarians, 4,163 otherBritish and 1,876 aliens.

The Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Declara-

tion on the Granting of Independence to Colo-nial Countries and Peoples considered the ques-tion of Gibraltar at a plenary meeting on 3October 1968. It decided to transmit to theGeneral Assembly a working paper on Gibraltarprepared by the Secretariat, in order to facili-tate consideration of the item by the Assembly's


Fourth Committee and, subject to any direc-tives which the Assembly might give, to considerthe item at its next session.

At its twenty-third session, in 1968, the Gen-eral Assembly had before it a report by theSecretary-General on the question of Gibraltar,submitted in pursuance of a resolution adoptedby the Assembly on 19 December 1967.31 Bythis, the Assembly had, among other things,invited Spain and the United Kingdom to re-sume without delay the negotiations providedfor by previous General Assembly resolutions32

with a view to putting an end to the colonialsituation in Gibraltar and to safeguarding theinterests of the population upon the termina-tion of that situation. The Secretary-Generalhad been requested to assist the Governmentsof Spain and the United Kingdom in the im-plementation of the resolution and report tothe Assembly. The report contained the textsof correspondence between the Secretary-Gen-eral and the representatives of the United King-dom and Spain, as well as correspondence ex-changed between the two countries.

Also before the Assembly were two com-munications, one from Spain, dated 13 Novem-ber 1968 and the other from the United King-dom, dated 2 December 1968.

The letter from Spain said, among otherthings, that in 1966 the United Kingdom Gov-ernment had declared sovereignty over a por-tion of the isthmus joining the colony of Gi-braltar to the rest of Spanish territory. Con-sequently the Spanish Government had beenobliged, in defence of its own territory, to cur-tail the facilities granted for the movement ofpersons over the portion of territory which theUnited Kingdom was now trying to annex. Itwas not correct, therefore, to state that Spainhad applied any kind of unfriendly restrictionson communications between Gibraltar and therest of Spain. The decisions adopted were lim-ited to the application of the clauses of theTreaty of Utrecht.

As to the negotiations with the United King-dom started in Madrid, Spain, in March 1968,the letter continued, these had been unilaterallysuspended by the United Kingdom when itrefused to consider the substantive problem ofthe decolonization of the territory of Gibraltarand merely offered to discuss peripheral prob-

lems which in no way affected the substantivequestion of the termination of the situation ofGibraltar as a colony on Spanish soil.

In its letter, the United Kingdom stated thatthe Spanish Government had refused the offerof the United Kingdom to allow the Interna-tional Court of Justice to decide on the legalissues at stake, issues concerning and arisingout of the Treaty of Utrecht. The Spanish Gov-ernment, the United Kingdom said, was re-sponsible for the failure of the negotiations inMadrid because of the attempt of the Spanishauthorities to insist at the beginning of thetalks that the only matter to be discussed wasthe implementation of the General Assembly'sresolution of 19 December 1967 (2353(XXII)).33 The United Kingdom Governmentstill hoped that the Spanish Government wouldagree to constructive bilateral discussions whichwould lead to an improvement in the situationon Gibraltar and to a change in the prospectsfor a fruitful negotiation about its future inthe longer term.

During the Fourth Committee's considerationof the question, the representative of Spaindeclared that the situation had worsened in thepast year and that the United Kingdom's atti-tude to the Assembly's resolution had been char-acterized by indifference and by non-compliance.While the United Kingdom asserted that itsrefusal to accept the resolution was based ex-clusively on its desire to protect the inhabitantsof Gibraltar, it was concealing the fact thatSpain, too, wished them to continue being Brit-ish and had proposed formulas which wouldmake that possible. The United Kingdom failedto say, the Spanish representative continued,that Spain had proposed that the inhabitantsof the city should retain their British nationality,enjoy municipal autonomy and have their statusguaranteed by an international convention tobe signed by Spain and the United Kingdomand registered with the United Nations. Thelegitimate interests of the inhabitants of Gibral-tar which Spain was prepared to respect and

31 See Y.U.N., 1967, p. 676, text of resolution 2353(XXII).

32 See Y.U.N., 1965, p. 583, text of resolution 2070(XX) and Y.U.N., 1966, p. 588, text of resolution2231 (XXI).

33 See footnote 31.


defend were not to be confused with a supposed The United Kingdom's position had alwaysright to decide the future of Gibraltar. been that discussions should take place without

Quoting the United Kingdom's position that, preconditions, with either side free to raisein accordance with Article 73e34 of the United whatever subjects they thought relevant to theNations Charter, the interests of the population future of Gibraltar. The Spanish Government,

however, had insisted that the talks should dealwere paramount, the representative of Spainargued that within the context of Article 73,the Charter was referring to indigenous popu-lations who had their roots in the territory.The present inhabitants of Gibraltar were notindigenous, he said, but had been brought inby the colonial power to service the British navalbase once the original inhabitants had been ex-pelled. He also claimed that, according toUnited Kingdom statistics, 60 per cent of the18,000 civilian inhabitants were still employedby the base. The United Kingdom's interest inGibraltar was purely military. Furthermore, hecontended, the United Kingdom was promis-ing the inhabitants a new constitution—thustrying to give the impression that Gibraltar wasbeing decolonized—while its real hold over themilitary fortress remained unaffected.

The Spanish representative went on to saythat at talks held between Spanish and Britishofficials on 18 and 20 March 1968 in Madrid, ithad become clear that the United Kingdom

only with the Assembly's resolution (2353(XXII)) of 19 December 1967, which theUnited Kingdom could not accept since its effectwould be simply to hand over Gibraltar and itsinhabitants to Spain. The United Kingdom re-garded that resolution as being in conflict withArticle 73 of the United Nations Charter, whichdeclared that the interests of the inhabitants ofthe territory were paramount. The United King-dom Government had never denied the specialinterest that Spain had in the future of Gibral-tar, but there was also the United Kingdom'sobligation towards the people of Gibraltar them-selves. However large the majorities for resolu-tions approved by the Assembly or other bodies,the United Kingdom regarded its obligationunder Article 73 as overriding.

The United Kingdom representative tookissue with the Spanish representative's conten-tion that the General Assembly's resolution of14 December 1960 (1514(XV))35 applied only

had no intention of implementing the Assem- to indigenous peoples and could not thereforebly's resolution but was merely seeking to obtainfrom Spain a series of facilities in Spanishwaters, air space and territory bordering Gibral-tar which would make possible the unrestricteddevelopment of the United Kingdom's militarypresence on "the Rock" and consequently theconsolidation of the colonial situation in Gi-braltar.

The Spanish representative warned againstthe United Kingdom's contention that MemberStates were not required to heed resolutionsof the General Assembly because they were mererecommendations. Such a theory opened upinfinite possibilities for countries which did notwant to accept resolutions they disliked. Spainappealed to the United Nations to help thwartthe United Kingdom's manœuvres and to per-

be said to apply to the so-called "settlers" ofGibraltar. The Gibraltarians were not people ofBritish origin but had come from other parts ofthe Mediterranean, mainly from Malta andItaly; they had been living in Gibraltar fornearly 250 years. It was difficult to accept adoctrine according to which people who hadlived in a territory for 250 years had not livedthere long enough to establish their own rightsto that territory.

As to the Spanish offer of a statute to guaran-tee the rights and autonomy of Gibraltariansunder Spanish sovereignty, the United Kingdomrepresentative pointed out that it was for theGibraltarians to satisfy themselves that thisoffer was worth accepting and that the guar-antees would be real. The difficulty in their eyes

suade it to abandon its imperial and colonial at present was that, once sovereignty itself waspolicy in Gibraltar.

In reply to the Spanish statement, the UnitedKingdom representative categorically deniedthat his Government was responsible for thefailure of the talks held in Madrid in March.

34 For text of Article 73 of the Charter, see APPENDIXII.

35 See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50, text of resolution1514(XV).


relinquished, such guarantees might never beavailable; it therefore lay with the SpanishGovernment to persuade the people of Gibraltar,by co-operation and communication, that itcould and would assure their rights and theirway of life as effectively as the United Kingdom,if the existing situation was to be changed.

On 4 December 1968, a draft resolution wasintroduced in the Fourth Committee, sponsoredby the following 24 Members: Argentina, Bo-liva, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, theDominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Haiti, Hondu-ras, Iraq, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Panama,Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, SouthernYemen, Syria, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yemen.

By this draft, the Assembly would: regret thatthe administering power had failed to complywith the Assembly's resolution of 19 December1967 (2353(XXII)); declare that the continu-ation of the colonial situation in Gibraltar wasincompatible with the purposes and principlesof the Charter and of the Assembly's resolutionof 14 December 1960 (1514(XV)), on thegranting of independence; request the adminis-tering power to terminate the colonial situationin Gibraltar no later than 1 October 1969; andcall upon the United Kingdom Government tobegin without delay the negotiations with theSpanish Government provided for in the reso-lution of 19 December 1967. The Secretary-General was asked to give to both Governmentsany assistance they might require for the im-plementation of the resolution, and to report tothe Assembly at its twenty-fourth session in1969.

During the debate, Colombia, Ecuador, ElSalvador, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Mauri-tania, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United ArabRepublic and Uruguay supported the conten-tion that the territorial integrity of Spain shouldbe restored. Several of these, including Hondu-ras, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Re-public and Uruguay, agreed that the inhabitantsof Gibraltar were not indigenous to the area andtherefore did not have the right of self-determi-nation with regard to a territory that rightfullyshould revert to Spain. Equatorial Guinea fur-ther maintained that the right of self-determi-nation could not be accepted for a populationwhich was loyal to the administering power.

These representatives argued that it was pos-sible to maintain Spain's territorial integritywhile at the same time taking account of theaspirations of the people of Gibraltar. Spainhad shown due regard for the interests ofGibraltar's people by proposing a statute thatwould guarantee their right to retain Britishnationality and enjoy a large measure of auton-omy; this regard for their interests should not,however, be confused with the right to disposeof a piece of Spanish territory. The representa-tive of Saudi Arabia and others observed thatthe Treaty of Utrecht, by which Spain hadceded Gibraltar to the United Kingdom, hadbeen signed under duress.

The representative of Equatorial Guineanoted that there were two principles at issueregarding Gibraltar: the territorial integrity ofa country and the self-determination of a peo-ple. These principles were not mutually exclu-sive but concurrent and neither of them shouldbe given precedence over the other. He believedin a solution involving the restoration of theterritorial integrity of Spain, at the same timetaking into account the aspirations of the peopleof Gibraltar.

In reply, the representative of the UnitedKingdom said that few countries in the present-day world were populated by their originalinhabitants. The present inhabitants of Gibral-tar had lived there for more than two and a halfcenturies. If that was to be regarded as tooshort, he wondered how many populations hadstayed in their countries long enough. It hadbeen suggested, the United Kingdom represent-ative said, that the question must be settledaccording to the principle of "national unityand territorial integrity." That principle wasmeaningless in the case of Gibraltar and couldnever be applied. He wondered whether accord-ing to this principle Portugal was part of Spain,Canada part of the United States, or the townsof Ceuta and Melilla part of Morocco. In theanalagous case of Spanish Sahara, the principleof self-determination had been applied regard-less of territorial claims placed against it.

On 16 December, the Fourth Committeeapproved the draft resolution by a roll-call voteof 66 to 18, with 31 abstentions. (For votingdetails, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

In explanation of vote, several Members—


including Australia, India, Israel, the IvoryCoast, Jamaica, Liberia, Malaysia, Netherlands,Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom—ex-pressed concern that the resolution made noreference to the aspirations or wishes of thepeople and, indeed, seemed to ignore the prin-ciple of self-determination. Others—includingBarbados, Brazil, Ethiopia, Greece, Ireland,Turkey, the United States and Zambia, as wellas the Ivory Coast and the United Kingdom—were opposed to, or had reservations on, theparagraph of the draft resolution by which theAssembly requested the administering power toterminate the colonial situation in Gibraltar nolater than 1 October 1969. In their view, tofix deadlines or target dates would not be usefulor practical in reaching a solution of the Gibral-tar dispute. The representative of Barbadosadded that a deadline should be fixed only atthe express desire of the people of the territory,and not unilaterally by the Fourth Committeeor any other United Nations body. Some ofthese Members believed that the draft resolu-tion as a whole was not conducive to the cre-ation of a suitable atmosphere for a settlement;by calling upon the United Kingdom to initiatenegotiations with Spain, it seemed to be puttingthe onus on the United Kingdom alone.

Some Members, including Argentina, Iran,Spain, the United Arab Republic and Uruguay,stressed the importance of the principle of ter-ritorial integrity contained in the draft resolu-tion. Only by restoring the territorial integrityof Spain, they claimed, could Gibraltar be trulydecolonized. The representative of the USSR,while supporting the draft resolution, regrettedthat it made no provision for the elimination

of the military base or for the demilitarizationof the area.

On 18 December 1968, the text recommendedby the Fourth Committee was adopted by theAssembly by a roll-call vote of 67 to 18, with34 abstentions, as resolution 2429 (XXIII). (Fortext, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

Speaking before the vote, the United King-dom representative regretted what he claimedto be the Spanish policy of harassment andcoercion of the people of Gibraltar. This policy,by alienating the people, had militated againstany positive progress. He looked forward to theday when Spain would attempt to establish re-lations of conciliation rather than intimidationof the Gibraltarians. The representative of theUnited Kingdom also deplored the fact that,often for reasons entirely irrelevant to the ques-tion at issue, a number of Members should havesupported a proposition which they knew couldnot be put into effect and which could only barthe way to practical progress—thus bringingwide discredit to the United Nations.

The Spanish representative pointed out that,in his view, the deadline set by the resolutiondid not constitute a barrier to the solution of theproblem, and that if talks between both partieswere to begin seriously the Assembly would notobject to a change of deadline as, for example,had occurred in the case of Equatorial Guinea.He claimed that the Assembly's past resolutionson Gibraltar constituted a well-considered doc-trine which was United Nations doctrine andshould be complied with. The way to solve theproblem of Gibraltar was to abide by UnitedNations resolutions which had set out the pro-cedures for decolonizing the territory.






A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee ofTwenty-four (covering its work during 1968),Chapter XIV.

A/7121 and Add.1-5. Report of Secretary-General.

A/7343. Letter of 13 November 1968 from Spain.A/7371. Letter of 2 December 1968 from United

Kingdom.A/C.4/L.911 and Add.1-8. Argentina, Bolivia, Cam-

bodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Repub-lic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gua-temala, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Mauritania, Nica-ragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South-ern Yemen, Syria, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen:draft resolution, approved by Fourth Committee on16 December 1968, meeting 1814, by roll-call voteof 66 to 18, with 31 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina,Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR,


Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo(Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Congo, CostaRica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey,Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equa-torial Guinea, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti,Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, IvoryCoast, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania,Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay,Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, SaudiArabia, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Spain, Sudan,Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR,United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tan-zania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia,Zambia.Against: Australia, Barbados, Botswana, Canada,Denmark, Gambia, Guyana, Jamaica, Lesotho, Li-beria, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, New Zealand,Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sweden, United Kingdom.Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Cen-tral African Republic, Ceylon, Ethiopia, Finland,France, Ghana, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel,Italy, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Madagascar,Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Pak-istan, Senegal, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and To-bago, Uganda, United States, Upper Volta.

A/7419. Report of Fourth Committee, on territoriesnot considered separately, draft resolution II.

RESOLUTION 2429(xxiii), as recommended by FourthCommittee, A/7419, adopted by Assembly on 18December 1968, meeting 1747, by roll-call vote of67 to 18, with 34 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina,Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR,Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo(Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Congo, CostaRica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey,Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equa-torial Guinea, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti,Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, IvoryCoast. Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania,Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama,Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania,Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Southern Yemen,Spain, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian

SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Repub-lic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugo-slavia, Zambia.Against: Australia, Barbados, Botswana, Can-ada, Denmark, Guyana, Jamaica, Lesotho, Liberia,Malawi, Malaysia, Maldive Islands, Mauritius, NewZealand, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sweden, UnitedKingdom.Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Cen-tral African Republic, Ceylon, Ethiopia, Finland,France, Gabon, Ghana, Iceland, India, Ireland,Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Laos, Luxembourg,Madagascar, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger,Nigeria, Norway, Senegal, Swaziland, Thailand,Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, UnitedStates, Upper Volta.

The General Assembly,Having considered the question of Gibraltar,Having heard the statements of the administering

Power and the representative of Spain.Recalling its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December

1960,Recalling also its resolution 2353(XXII) of 19 De-

cember 1967,1. Regrets that the administering Power has failed

to comply with General Assembly resolution 2353(XXII) ;

2. Declares that the continuation of the colonialsituation in Gibraltar is incompatible with the pur-poses and principles of the Charter of the UnitedNations and of General Assembly resolution 1514(XV);

3. Requests the administering Power to terminatethe colonial situation in Gibraltar no later than 1October 1969;

4. Calls upon the Government of the United King-dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to beginwithout delay the negotiations with the Governmentof Spain provided for in resolution 2353(XXII);

5. Requests the Secretary-General to give the Gov-ernments of Spain and the United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland any assistance they mayrequire for the implementation of the present reso-lution and to report thereon to the General Assem-bly at its twenty-fourth session.

Ifni and Spanish Sahara

Ifni, an enclave on the Atlantic coast of Africasurrounded on the north, east and south byMorocco, covers an area of approximately1,500 square kilometres and has a population ofabout 50,000 inhabitants. Spanish Sahara coversan area of 280,000 square kilometres on theAtlantic coast of Africa; it is bounded on thenorth by Morocco and on the east and southby Mauritania (except for a few kilometres inthe east, where it is bounded by Algeria). Its

indigenous population was officially estimated tonumber 33,512 persons at the end of 1966. Bothterritories are administered by Spain. Ifni is thesubject of territorial claims by Morocco, and theSpanish Sahara by Morocco and Mauritania.

CONSIDERATION BY SPECIALCOMMITTEE OF TWENTY-FOUR

The Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Déclara-


tion on the Granting of Independence to Colo-nial Countries and Peoples decided to considerthe question of Ifni and Spanish Sahara as aseparate item at its plenary meetings in 1968.

On 3 October 1968, the Special Committeedecided to transmit to the General Assemblythe working paper on these territories preparedby the United Nations Secretariat, in order tofacilitate consideration of the item by the Assem-bly's Fourth Committee and—subject to anydirectives which the Assembly might wish togive in that connexion—to consider the item atits next session.

Pursuant to a General Assembly decision of19 December 1967,36 the Secretary-General ad-dressed a letter to the representative of Spain on23 January 1968, inviting Spain's views on theappointment of the proposed special mission toSpanish Sahara for the purpose of recommend-ing practical steps for the full implementationof relevant General Assembly resolutions, andin particular for determining the extent ofUnited Nations participation in the preparationand supervision of the referendum under UnitedNations auspices invited by a General Assemblydecision of 20 December 1966.37

In a letter to the Secretary-General dated 17October 1968, the Permanent Representative ofSpain reiterated his statement of 7 December1966 to the General Assembly's Fourth Com-mittee,38 namely, that his delegation was readyto start talks with the Secretary-General to dis-cuss the dispatch of observers to Spanish Sa-hara, so that they could directly and objectivelyanalyse the situation in the territory and forma judgement on the matter.


The question of Ifni and Spanish Sahara wasconsidered by the General Assembly at itstwenty-third session in 1968.

In a statement made during the debate inthe Assembly's Fourth Committee—where thequestion was mainly discussed—the representa-tive of Spain declared that in the current nego-tiations between Morocco and Spain over Ifni,a happy solution to the differences between thetwo countries had been found as a result of theSpanish Government's having accepted a newformula proposed by the Government of Mo-

rocco. A Spanish delegation would leave forRabat, Morocco, to dispose of the last outstand-ing questions so as to proceed with the signingof a treaty transferring the territory of Ifni toMoroccan sovereignty.

With regard to Spanish Sahara, the repre-sentative of Spain referred to his Government'sdeclared desire, in accordance with United Na-tions decisions, to respect and uphold the rightto self-determination of the indigenous inhabit-ants of the Sahara. As soon as the populationso desired, his Government, in a spirit of co-operation with the resolutions of the UnitedNations, would provide whatever assistance thepopulation needed to exercise its right.

The representative of Mauritania stated thateven though his delegation had no doubt thatso-called Spanish Sahara belonged to Mauri-tania, his country had agreed that the processof decolonization should be carried out by theprocess of self-determination, as laid down inthe General Assembly's resolution (2354(XXII)) of 19 December 1967.39 The greatconcession made by his country in acceptingthat procedure was obvious when it was remem-bered that so-called Spanish Sahara was part ofnorth-western Mauritania and was separatedfrom independent Mauritania by an imaginaryline. That line did not really exist for the inhabi-ants of the territory, many of whom were stillnomads and spent more than half the year inMauritania with their blood brothers, whoseculture, traditions and way of life they shared.The Mauritanian representative emphasized hisGovernment's view that the question of Ifni,on the one hand, and so-called Spanish Sahara,on the other, raised totally different problemsand should be considered separately. In the firstcase, the United Nations had called for directnegotiations between Spain and Morocco witha view to transferring the Ifni enclave to theMoroccan authorities, whereas, in order to de-cide the future of so-called Spanish Sahara, ithad asked that the principle of self-determina-tion be applied to its inhabitants. He urged the

36 See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 679-80, text of resolution2354(XXIT).

37 See Y.U.N., 1965, pp. 591-92, text of resolution2229(XXI).

38 Ibid., p. 590.39 See footnote 36,


Committee to adopt a special resolution withregard to so-called Spanish Sahara withoutprejudice to the adoption of another resolutionconcerning Ifni, if necessary.

In reply to the Mauritanian representative'scontention that the Fourth Committee shouldtreat Ifni and so-called Spanish Sahara sepa-rately, the representative of Morocco pointedout that the question of Ifni and so-calledSpanish Sahara had been included in the Gen-eral Assembly's agenda in its existing form since1959 at Morocco's request and with the agree-ment of all parties concerned. The manner inwhich the Special Committee, the Fourth Com-mittee and the plenary Assembly had dealt withthe question had never been challenged to date.Referring to Mauritania's claim to so-calledSpanish Sahara, the Moroccan representativerecalled that Mauritania itself had been claimedas Moroccan territory but, as a result of UnitedNations intervention, an agreement had beenreached whereby Mauritania had obtained inde-pendence. Morocco had accepted that agree-ment although it could have regarded it asunjust and rejected it as other countries, lessloyal to the principles of the United NationsCharter, had done. In the present case also,Morocco accepted the decision of the UnitedNations, namely, that there should be self-determination and a referendum to decide thefuture status of so-called Spanish Sahara. Mo-rocco had not advanced its claims when theresolution of 19 December 196740 had beenadopted and he hoped that the other partiesconcerned would not do so either.

With regard to the question of Ifni, it was tobe hoped, he said, that the last difficulties wouldbe overcome and that, with the co-operation ofthe two Heads of State and the two Govern-ments, there would shortly be an effectivetransfer of administrative authority to Morocco.

Some Members, notably Syria and UpperVolta, urged Spain to settle the problem ofIfni and Spanish Sahara. Syria pointed out thatthe Spanish claim to Gibraltar, which Syria hadsteadfastly supported, would appear more logicalif a concomitant effort was made to settle thequestion of Ifni and Spanish Sahara in con-formity with the same principles.

The representative of Upper Volta noted thatin the two years since the Spanish Government

had declared its intention of giving the inhabit-ants of Spanish Sahara the opportunity to de-termine their own future, no tangible measureshad been adopted to that end. It was only nat-ural that the delay should give rise to somemisgivings about the Spanish Government'sgood faith; although the Spanish Governmenthad liberated Equatorial Guinea, it had so fartaken ho steps towards granting Spanish Saharaindependence. Referring to the Spanish repre-sentative's assertion that his Government wouldgrant independence to the people of SpanishSahara when they desired it, the representativeof Upper Volta pointed out that this approachwas incompatible with the provisions of theGeneral Assembly's resolution (1514(XV)) of14 December 196041 which stated that all peo-ples had the right to self-determination.

On 16 December 1968, the Fourth Committeeapproved—by a roll-call vote of 105 to 0, with3 abstentions—a draft resolution on the item,sponsored by Afghanistan, Burundi, Ghana,Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Liberia, Mali, Niger,Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Syria,Tunisia, the United Republic of Tanzania, andYugoslavia.

The text was adopted at a plenary meetingof the General Assembly on 18 December 1968,as resolution 2428(XXIII), by a recorded voteof 114 to 0, with 3 abstentions. By this, theAssembly, with regard to Ifni, requested theadministering power to take immediately thenecessary steps to accelerate the decolonizationof Ifni and to determine with the Governmentof Morocco, bearing in mind the aspirationsof the indigenous population, the procedures forthe transfer of powers in accordance with theAssembly's resolution of 14 December 1960. Italso invited the administering power to continuethe dialogue which had begun with the Govern-ment of Morocco, with a view to implementingthe above-mentioned provisions.

With regard to Spanish Sahara, the Assemblyinvited the administering power to determine atthe earliest possible date, in conformity with theaspirations of the indigenous people of SpanishSahara and in consultation with the Govern-

40 Ibid.41 See Y.U.N., 1960, pp. 49-50, text of resolution

1514(XV).


merits of Mauritania and Morocco and anyother interested party, the procedures for theholding of a referendum under United Nationsauspices with a view to enabling the indigenouspopulation of the territory to exercise freely itsright to self-determination and, to this end:(a) to create a favourable climate for the refer-endum to be conducted on an entirely free,democratic and impartial basis, by permitting,among other things, the return of exiles to theterritory; (6) to take all necessary steps toensure that only the indigenous people of theterritory participated in the referendum; (c) torefrain from any action likely to delay theprocess of the decolonization of Spanish Sahara;and (d) to provide all the necessary facilitiesto a United Nations mission so that it might beable to participate actively in the organizationand holding of the referendum.

Further, the Assembly asked the Secretary-General, in consultation with the administeringpower and the Special Committee, to appointimmediately the special mission provided for inthe General Assembly's resolution of 20 De-cember 1966 (2229(XXI))4 2 and to expediteits dispatch to Spanish Sahara for the purposeof recommending practical steps for the fullimplementation of the relevant General Assem-bly resolutions, and in particular for determiningthe extent of United Nations participation inthe preparation and supervision of the referen-dum and submitting a report to him for trans-mission to the General Assembly at its twenty-fourth (1969) session.

(For text of resolution, see DOCUMENTARYREFERENCES below.)

42 See footnote 37.


Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, meet-ings 594, 641, 644.



Fifth Committee, meeting 1291.Plenary Meeting 1747.

A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee ofTwenty-four (covering its work during 1968), Chap-ter XIII.

A/C.4/L.926. Afghanistan, Burundi, Ghana, Guinea,Indonesia, Iraq, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Pakistan,Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia,United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia: draftresolution, approved by Fourth Committee on 16December 1968, meeting 1814, by roll-call vote of105 to 0, with 3 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Aus-tralia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil,Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cam-bodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Repub-lic, Ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia, DemocraticRepublic of Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus,Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea,Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guate-mala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy,Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon,Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia,Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal,Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nor-way, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philip-

pines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia,Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, SouthernYemen, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand,Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey,Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic,United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania,United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela,Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: None.Abstaining: France, Mexico, South Africa.

A/C.4/L.932, A/C.5/1220, A/7440. Administrativeand financial implications of draft resolution Iproposed by Fourth Committee, A/7419. State-ments by Secretary-General and report of FifthCommittee.

A/7419. Report of Fourth Committee, on territoriesnot considered separately, draft resolution I.

RESOLUTION 2428(xxiii), as recommended by FourthCommittee, A/7419, adopted by Assembly on 18December 1968, meeting 1747, by recorded vote of114 to 0, with 3 abstentions, as follows :In favour:* Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Aus-tralia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil,Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cam-bodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Repub-lic, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, Colombia, DemocraticRepublic of Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus,Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea,Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guate-mala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary,Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel,Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Laos,Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg,Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldive Islands,Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco,


Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger,Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philip-pines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia,Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South-ern Yemen, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden,Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tu-nisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR,United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, United States, Upper Volta,Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: None.Abstaining: France, Mexico, South Africa.

* Subsequently, the delegation of Jordan informedthe Secretariat that it had voted in favour.

The General Assembly,Having examined the chapter of the report of the

Special Committee on the Situation with regard tothe Implementation of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples relating to the Territories of Ifni and SpanishSahara,

Recalling its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December1960 containing the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,

Recalling also the resolution adopted on 16 October1964 by the Special Committee,

Reaffirming its resolutions 2072 (XX) of 16 De-cember 1965 and 2229(XXI) of 20 December 1966,

Noting that the Government of Spain, as the ad-ministering Power, has not yet applied the provisionsof resolution 1514(XV),

Recalling the decision concerning the Territoriesunder Spanish administration taken by the Assemblyof Heads of State and Government of the Organi-zation of African Unity at its third ordinary session,held at Addis Ababa from 5 to 9 November 1966,

Reaffirming its resolution 2354(XXII) of 19 De-cember 1967,

Noting the statement made by the administeringPower on 7 December 1966 relating to SpanishSahara, particularly with respect to the sending of aspecial mission of the United Nations to this Territory,the return of exiles and the free exercise by the in-digenous population of its right to self-determination,

Noting further the statement made by the Perma-nent Representative of the administering Power on 29November 1968, according to which an official Spanishdelegation would leave in the immediate future forRabat with a view to signing a treaty with the Gov-ernment of Morocco on the transfer forthwith of theTerritory of Ifni to Morocco,

Noting the difference in nature of the legal status ofthese two Territories, as well as the processes ofdecolonization envisaged by General Assembly resolu-tion 2354(XXII) for these Territories,

I

IFNI1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people

of Ifni to self-determination in accordance with Gen-eral Assembly resolution 1514(XV);

2. Approves the chapter of the report of theSpecial Committee on the Situation with regard to theImplementation of the Declaration on the Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoplesrelating to the Territory of Ifni;

3. Requests the administering Power to take im-mediately the necessary steps to accelerate the de-colonization of Ifni and to determine with the Govern-ment of Morocco, bearing in mind the aspirations ofthe indigenous population, the procedures for thetransfer of powers in accordance with the provisionsof General Assembly resolution 1514(XV);

4. Invites the administering Power to continue thedialogue which has begun with the Government ofMorocco, with a view to implementing the provisionsof paragraph 3 above;

5. Requests the Special Committee to continue itsconsideration of the situation in the Territory of Ifniand to report thereon to the General Assembly at itstwenty-fourth session;

II

SPANISH SAHARA1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people

of Spanish Sahara to self-determination in accordancewith General Assembly resolution 1514(XV);

2. Approves the chapter of the report of the Spe-cial Committee on the Situation with regard to theImplementation of the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples re-lating to the Territory of Spanish Sahara;

3. Invites the administering Power to determineat the earliest possible date, in conformity with theaspirations of the indigenous people of Spanish Saharaand in consultation with the Governments of Mauri-tania and Morocco and any other interested party,the procedures for the holding of a referendum underUnited Nations auspices with a view to enabling theindigenous population of the Territory to exercisefreely its right to self-determination and, to this end:

(a) To create a favourable climate for the refer-endum to be conducted on an entirely free, demo-cratic and impartial basis by permitting, inter alia,the return of exiles to the Territory;

(b) To take all the necessary steps to ensure thatonly the indigenous people of the Territory participatein the referendum;

(c) To refrain from any action likely to delay theprocess of the decolonization of Spanish Sahara;

(d) To provide all the necessary facilities to aUnited Nations mission so that it may be able toparticipate actively in the organization and holding ofthe referendum;

4. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultationwith the administering Power and the Special Com-mittee, to appoint immediately the special missionprovided for in paragraph 5 of General Assembly reso-lution 2229(XXI) and to expedite its dispatch toSpanish Sahara for the purpose of recommendingpractical steps for the full implementation of the rele-vant General Assembly resolutions, and in particular


for determining the extent of United Nations partici-pation in the preparation and supervision of the refer-endum and submitting a report to him for transmissionto the General Assembly at its twenty-fourth session;

5. Requests the Special Committee to continue itsconsideration of the situation in the Territory ofSpanish Sahara and to report thereon to the GeneralAssembly at its twenty-fourth session.

Other Territories

In 1968, in addition to the territories coveredin the preceding sections, the General Assemblyand its 24-member Special Committee on theSituation with regard to the Implementation ofthe Declaration on the Granting of Independ-ence to Colonial Countries and Peoples con-sidered the situation in the following territories :American Samoa, Antigua, Bahamas, Bermuda,British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cocos(Keeling) Islands, Dominica, Gilbert and ElliceIslands, Grenada, Guam, Mauritius, Montser-rat, New Hebrides, Niue, Pitcairn, St. Helena,St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent,Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, TokelauIslands, Turks and Caicos Islands and theUnited States Virgin Islands.

During 1968, two former non-self-governingterritories acceded to independence—Mauritiuson 12 March and Swaziland on 6 September.

The Special Committee referred the other 24territories to its Sub-Committees I, II and IIIfor consideration and report. The Special Com-mittee adopted the Sub-Committees' reports onall but two of these territories and endorsedtheir conclusions and recommendations, in mostinstances on the understanding that any reser-vations made by members of the Committeewould be included in the meeting records.Owing to lack of time, the Sub-Committeesconcerned were unable to complete their con-sideration of the British Virgin Islands andCocos (Keeling) Islands and, therefore, theSpecial Committee took no action on either ofthese territories.

The Special Committee also decided to con-sider the situation in Brunei, in Hong Kong,and in Papua and the Trust Territory of NewGuinea. However, owing to lack of time, theSpecial Committee had to defer considerationof these territories until 1969, subject to anydirectives from the General Assembly at itstwenty-third (1968) session. The situation inBritish Honduras, which the Special Committeehad decided to take up in plenary meetings, wasalso deferred to 1969.

In addition, the Special Committee consid-ered the situation in the Trust Territory of thePacific Islands, and the General Assembly con-sidered the situation in Papua and the TrustTerritory of New Guinea. (For further details,see pp. 701 and 692-93 above.)


The Special Committee heard nine petition-ers: McChesney D. B. George and Russel Johnconcerning Antigua; Roosevelt Brown and El-vira Warner concerning Bermuda; A. D. Pateland Reuben K. Uatioa concerning the Gilbertand Ellice Islands; William V. Herbert con-cerning St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla; E. TheodoreJoshua and O. R. Sylvester concerning St.Vincent.

On 11 March 1968, the Chairman of theSpecial Committee, on behalf of the Committee,welcomed the accession of Mauritius to inde-pendence. Statements of welcome were alsomade by members of the Committee, amongthem Australia, Chile, India, Madagascar, theUSSR, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates.

The question of Swaziland was considered bythe Special Committee at meetings between 11April and 22 May 1968 and again on 5 Septem-ber 1968.

When the Special Committee began its con-sideration of the item on 11 April, the repre-sentative of the United Kingdom made a state-ment describing developments in Swaziland in1967 and 1968. The main development in 1968had been a constitutional conference held inLondon, United Kingdom, from 19 to 23 Feb-ruary to consider the future constitution of theterritory. The conference had approved propo-sals of the Swaziland Government, subject tocertain modifications, which were also approved.However, the United Kingdom representativesaid, no agreement had been reached on twomatters: the question of land and the questionof the rights of control over mineral resources.


On 22 May, the Special Committee adopted—by 20 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions—a reso-lution proposed by Afghanistan, Ethiopia, India,Iran, Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mali,Sierra Leone, Syria, Tunisia, the United Repub-lic of Tanzania, and Yugoslavia.

By this, the Special Committee reaffirmed itsprevious resolutions and recommendations con-cerning Swaziland and noted that the ad-ministering power, the United Kingdom, hadcomplied with the unanimous request of theSwaziland Parliament in September 1967 thatthe territory accede to independence on 6 Sep-tember 1968. The Committee regretted that noagreement had been reached between the ad-ministering power and the Swaziland peopleconcerning the latter's claim for compensationfor land alienated from them, and reiterated itsprevious request that the administering powertake immediate steps to ensure the return ofall land or to pay compensation. The Committeealso reiterated its request that the administeringpower take action to bring about the economicindependence of Swaziland vis-à-vis the Gov-ernment of South Africa, to protect the territo-rial integrity and sovereignty of the territoryin view of the interventionist policies of theracist régime in South Africa, and to enable theterritory to achieve genuine and completeindependence.

The United Kingdom, which abstained in thevote, expressed reservations on the provisionsdealing with land ownership and with the eco-nomic independence and territorial integrityof Swaziland. Action on the question of landownership, under the 1967 Constitution, wasentirely within the competence of the electedGovernment of Swaziland. If the Governmentof Swaziland included land settlement projectsin its national development plan, financial as-sistance would almost certainly be forthcomingfrom the United Kingdom. Swaziland's PrimeMinister had announced his Government's in-tention to resume negotiations on the matter inthe near future.

On the question of economic independence,the United Kingdom representative stated thatSwaziland's geographical situation made theneed for some correlation of its economic andcurrency arrangements with the South AfricanGovernment inescapable, and it was already

co-operating in a customs union with thatcountry. The United Kingdom would fulfil itsresponsibilities for protecting the territorial in-tegrity of Swaziland until it became independ-ent, but believed that there was no evidenceof any territorial ambitions on the part of SouthAfrica.

Chile, Finland, Honduras and Italy also ex-pressed reservations concerning these provisions.

At the meeting on 5 September, members ofthe Special Committee welcomed the forthcom-ing accession of Swaziland to independence on6 September.

The Chairman of the Special Committee saidit was a matter for regret that since the adoptionof the Committee's resolution of 22 May noindication of any significant improvement in thesituation had been received. However, the acces-sion of Swaziland to independence was an occa-sion for the Committee to express its congratu-lations and best wishes for the prosperity andwell-being of the people of the territory.

On 17 May 1968, the Special Committeeadopted an interim report on Bermuda sub-mitted by Sub-Committee III and endorsed theconclusions and recommendations containedtherein, as orally amended by the United Re-public of Tanzania. The Special Committeeexpressed concern over recent developments inthe territory and the action taken by the admin-istering power—the United Kingdom—in de-claring a state of emergency in, and sendingtroops to, the territory. It took note of theinformation provided by the administeringpower that the state of emergency had beenlifted on 8 May and requested the administeringpower speedily to withdraw the troops it hadsent. The Special Committee also requested theadministering power to defer the elections untilconditions in the territory were completely nor-mal, and called upon it to ensure the necessaryconditions in which the people of the territorymight express their views in full freedom andwithout any restrictions. It reiterated its beliefthat a United Nations presence during the elec-tions was desirable and urged the administeringpower to enable the United Nations to send aspecial mission to the territory and to extendto it full co-operation and assistance.

During the Special Committee's discussionsof the Sub-Committee's interim report on Ber-


muda, the USSR said that the declaration of astate of emergency and the dispatch of UnitedKingdom troops on the eve of the electionscould be interpreted only as the result of adeliberate intention to deprive the populationof the opportunity to decide their future.

The United Kingdom representative saidthat because of disorders in the territory duringthree days in late April., and the fact that thelocal security forces did not have the capacityto cope with the situation, a state of emergencyhad been declared and a force of 150 troopsflown out from the United Kingdom. An inde-pendent commission was investigating thecauses of the disorders and it could already bestated that they were unconnected with thepolitical situation. He rejected any suggestionthat the presence of such a small detachment oftroops could in any way influence the forth-coming elections. The United Kingdom repre-sentative stressed that the state of emergencyhad lasted only a few days and that it wasimportant for the Special Committee to under-stand that normal conditions had been restoredwithin a few days.

The United Kingdom representative opposedthe adoption of the interim report and said thatits conclusions and recommendations were forthe most part unacceptable. By commenting onadministrative and executive matters whichclearly lay within the responsibility of the gov-ernment of Bermuda and the administeringpower, the Sub-Committee's request to with-draw troops and defer elections had gone wellbeyond what might be expected of it. It wasnot the Special Committee's function, he said,to judge how long troops should remain in theterritory, and the request to defer the electionswas even more surprising as they would be thefirst to be held in Bermuda by universal adultsuffrage, by secret ballot. The representative ofthe United Kingdom said his Government wasnot prepared to accept a visiting mission or anyother visit from the Special Committee at thattime.

Reservations to the Sub-Committee's interimreport were also voiced by Australia and theUnited States, particularly with regard to thedeferment of elections, and the fact that nomention was made of the constitutional advancesin Bermuda.

On 25 June 1968, the Special Committeeadopted conclusions and recommendations con-cerning Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Turks andCaicos Islands, the Cayman Islands and Mont-serrat on the basis of a further report by Sub-Committee III. The Special Committee notedwith regret that the administering power, theUnited Kingdom, had not taken further meas-ures necessary to implement the Declaration onthe granting of independence with respect tothese territories and urged it to do so withoutdelay. It reiterated its request to the administer-ing power to take immediate measures to trans-fer all powers to the people of these territories,without conditions or reservations, in accord-ance with their freely expressed will and desire.In the Special Committee's view, a UnitedNations presence during the procedures for theexercise of the right of self-determination wasessential. Once again it urged the administeringpower to enable the United Nations to send avisiting mission to the territories and to extendto such a mission full co-operation and assist-ance.

With regard to Bermuda in particular, theSpecial Committee regretted that the adminis-tering power had not responded positively to itsrequest to defer the elections until conditionswere completely back to normal and to ensurethe necessary conditions in which the people ofthe territory might express their views in fullfreedom and without any restrictions.

Australia, the United Kingdom and theUnited States had reservations about the Sub-Committee's report as a whole, and in particu-lar, about the paragraph of the conclusions re-lating to Bermuda and the elections which hadtaken place there on 22 May 1968. Similarreservations on this paragraph were expressedby Finland and Italy. Chile and Venezuela hadreservations about the request to the administer-ing power to take immediate measures to transferall powers to the peoples of the territories, whilethe USSR had reservations on the paragraphrelating to the necessity of a United Nationspresence. It stated that as a first step the SpecialCommittee might consider sending a visitingmission to report on conditions in the territories,and the question of a United Nations presencecould be considered later.

On 25 June 1968, the Special Committee


adopted conclusions and recommendations con-tained in the report of Sub-Committee III onthe United States Virgin Islands. By these theSpecial Committee: recognized that the smallsize and population of the territory presentedpeculiar problems which demanded special at-tention; noted with regret that no constitutionalprogress had taken place in the territory sincethe item had last been examined by the SpecialCommittee and by the General Assembly; re-affirmed the inalienable right of the people ofthe territory to self-determination and independ-ence; invited the administering power to en-courage open, free and public discussion on thevarious alternatives open to the people of theterritory in their achievement of the objectivesof the Declaration on the granting of independ-ence, and to ensure that the territory's peopleexercised their right of self-determination in fullknowledge of these alternatives; reiterated itsbelief that a United Nations presence duringthe procedures for the exercise of the right ofself-determination would be essential in orderto ensure those ends; and once again urged theadministering power to enable the United Na-tions to send a visiting mission to the territoryand to extend to such a mission full co-operationand assistance.

Reservations were expressed by the UnitedKingdom and the United States on the groundthat the conclusions and recommendations didnot reflect the actual situation prevailing in theterritory and did not adequately take into ac-count the wishes expressed by the population.Australia also expressed reservations.

The USSR felt that a United Nations pres-ence in the territory would be premature andwould not produce positive results in view of theadministering power's attitude.

On 3 July 1968, the Special Committeeadopted conclusions and recommendations pro-posed by Sub-Committee III on the territoriesof Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. In particu-lar, it reaffirmed the inalienable right of thepeoples of the territories to self-determination;noted with regret that the administering power,the United Kingdom, had refused to co-operatewith the Sub-Committee; reiterated its requestto the administering power to take immediatemeasures to transfer all powers to the peoples

of the territories, without conditions or reserva-tions; and requested it to promote closer tiesamong the territories through the building of acommon political, economic and social infra-structure.

The Committee reiterated its belief that aUnited Nations presence during procedures forthe exercise of the right of self-determinationwould be essential. It also urged the administer-ing power to enable the United Nations to senda visiting mission to the territories and to extendto such a mission full co-operation and assistance.

The United Kingdom representative ex-pressed reservations about the conclusions andrecommendations as they applied to St. Vincent.The Sub-Committee's report, he said, had paidlittle heed to the information provided on con-stitutional progress in that territory. He said hisremarks applied solely to St. Vincent and in noway prejudiced his Government's position re-garding the five "West Indies Associated States"—Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla and St. Lucia—which had completedthe process of self-determination in choosing thestatus of associated statehood in free associationwith the United Kingdom.43

Similar reservations were made by the UnitedStates representative, who did not consider theWest Indies Associated States to be non-self-governing territories within the meaning ofArticle 73 of the United Nations Charter.44 Heand the representative of Australia consideredthat the territories did not come within thepurview of the Special Committee.

The USSR representative expressed a reser-vation on the paragraph of the report relatingto the need for a United Nations presence in theterritories; the USSR believed that such a pres-ence would be premature and would not proveproductive, in view of the attitude of the ad-ministering power.

Also on 3 July 1968, the Special Committeeadopted the conclusions and recommendationscontained in the report of Sub-Committee Iconcerning the Seychelles and St. Helena underUnited Kingdom administration. It noted that,under the new constitutional arrangement for

43 See Y.U.N., 1967, pp. 681-84.44 For text of Article 73 of the Charter, see

APPENDIX II.


the Seychelles introduced by the administeringpower, a Governing Council had been estab-lished, but it considered this step as inadequateto promote the process of decolonization. Itcalled upon the administering power to holdfree elections in the two territories on the basisof universal suffrage, as a preliminary to trans-ferring powers to representative organs resultingfrom such elections.

The Special Committee also deplored all ac-tions by the administering power to separatecertain islands from the Seychelles and reiteratedits previous position that any action on thepart of the administering power to establish theso-called "British Indian Ocean Territory" andany action, whether on its part alone or in con-junction with another power, to construct mili-tary bases therein would be incompatible withthe United Nations Charter.

The Special Committee concluded furtherthat the exploitation by foreign interests of theeconomy and natural resources of the Sey-chelles was detrimental to the genuine interestof the inhabitants. It noted that in both terri-tories progress in education and health wasstill slow.

The United Kingdom and the United States,expressing their reservations to the Special Com-mittee's conclusions and recommendations, con-sidered that the Sub-Committee's report hadfailed to reflect the progress towards self-govern-ment and self-determination which had beenachieved in the territories during the periodunder review. Both territories had a new con-stitution, drawn up after extensive consultations,and free elections based on universal adultsuffrage had recently been held. Both represent-atives also denied allegations concerning plansto establish military bases on certain coral atollsseparated from the Seychelles.

Similar objections to the report were voicedby Australia.

On 11 July 1968, the Special Committeeadopted—on the basis of the report of Sub-Committee II—conclusions and recommenda-tions concerning the Gilbert and Ellice Islands,Pitcairn and the Solomon Islands, administeredby the United Kingdom.

Stating that it was fully aware of the specialcircumstances of geographical location and eco-nomic conditions that existed in the territories,

the Special Committee reiterated its view thatthe size, isolation and limited resources of theseterritories should in no way delay the implemen-tation of the Declaration on the granting ofindependence. It considered that the recentconstitutional changes in the Gilbert and ElliceIslands and the Solomon Islands were insuffi-cient to enable the people of the territories toexercise their right of self-determination in theforeseeable future, and it recommended that theadministering power should transfer executiveresponsibilities and grant more powers to theelected representatives of the people. The Spe-cial Committee was of the opinion that the slowprogress in the territories toward self-determina-tion and independence was due, partly, to insuf-ficent awareness of the applicability to thoseterritories of the Declaration on the grantingof independence. A visiting mission would con-tribute to a greater understanding of the prob-lems facing the territories and would enable theSpecial Committee to assist the people of theterritories and the administering power in find-ing the speediest and most suitable way ofimplementing the Declaration.

With particular reference to the Gilbert andEllice Islands, the Special Committee regrettedthat the indigenous people had no say in themanagement of phosphate operations on OceanIsland, which constituted a major source ofrevenue for the territory. Recalling that theright of peoples and nations to self-determina-tion included permanent sovereignty over theirnatural wealth and resources, the Committeeurged the administering power to give the in-digenous inhabitants a direct role in the controland management of the phosphate industrythrough the establishment of a special bodyconsisting predominantly of indigenous repre-sentatives, It regretted that no satisfactory ex-planation had been offered by the administeringpower for the non-employment of Banabans inphosphate operations hitherto, and urged theadministering power to facilitate such employ-ment. The Committee requested the Secretary-General to conduct a detailed examination ofall aspects of extraction and marketing of phos-phate on Ocean Island. It also urged the admin-istering power to appoint immediately a com-mission to look into the demands and grievancesof the Banaban people.


Strong reservations concerning these conclu-sions and recommendations were made by therepresentatives of Australia, the United King-dom and the United States.

The United Kingdom representative couldnot accept the proposition that geographicalcharacteristics, isolation, dispersion and limitedresources should not delay the decolonizationprocess. He also could not see how the dissemi-nation of the Declaration in the territories wouldencourage economic expansion or would en-hance the political experience of the people'selected representatives.

The Special Committee's recommendationsconcerning the phosphate operations on OceanIsland, he continued, appeared to be basedsolely on the assertions of the legal adviser ofthe Banaban representatives. It was untrue thatthe indigenous people of the territory had nosay in the management of the phosphate indus-try. The Eanaban representatives had declinedan invitation to visit London to explain theviews of the community on matters relating tothe apportionment of the total phosphate bene-fits. As to the recommendation that the indige-nous inhabitants be given a direct role in thecontrol and management of the phosphate in-dustry, there was no evidence that the peopleof the territory had any desire to take over fromthe British Phosphate Commission the responsi-bility of such a complicated enterprise, whichwas conducted according to normal commercialstandards.

The recommendation that the Secretary-General should conduct a detailed examinationof the extraction and marketing of phosphatein a private industrial enterprise in a non-self-governing territory was unprecedented, he said.

As for the proposal to appoint a commissionto look into the demands and grievances of theBanaban people, the United Kingdom repre-sentative said, his Government had been tryingfor some time to arrange a meeting in orderto discuss the whole range of Banaban demandsand grievances.

The United Kingdom representative alsopointed out in his statement that general elec-tions had been held in both the Solomon Islandsand the Gilbert and Ellice Islands on the basisof universal adult suffrage. The processes ofrepresentative government were fully on the

way in each territory in conformity with theexpressed wishes of the people.

Statements in support of the Special Com-mittee's conclusions and recommendations weremade by India, Iraq, Sierra Leone and Yugo-slavia.

On 11 July 1968, the Special Committee ap-proved the report of Sub-Committee II on theterritories of Niue and the Tokelau Islands—administered by New Zealand—by a vote of19 to 3, with 2 abstentions. The Special Com-mittee stated that it was fully aware of thespecial circumstances of geographical locationand economic conditions existing in the terri-tories, and reiterated its view that the questionof size, isolation and limited resources shouldin no way delay the implementation of the Dec-laration on the granting of independence. Itbelieved that the political changes in the terri-tories were insufficient to enable the people toexercise the right of self-determination in theforeseeable future. Slow progress in the terri-tories towards self-determination and independ-ence was due, in part, to insufficient awarenessof the applicability of the Declaration to thoseterritories. The Special Committee reaffirmedthe importance of a visiting mission to the terri-tories and invited the administering power toreconsider its position that a visit by a UnitedNations mission would be appropriate only ifit were to form part of a more comprehensivetour of the area, and to make it possible fora mission to visit the territories as soon as prac-ticable.

The Special Committee welcomed the state-ment of New Zealand that when the peopleof the territories made their choice "they woulddoubtless do so under the eyes of United Na-tion observers." It concluded, however, that itwould be desirable for a sub-committee to visitthe territory before the people exercised theirright of self-determination.

The Special Committee also recommendedthat the administering power intensify its edu-cational programme and continue to seek theadvice and assistance of the specialized agenciesof the United Nations in formulating plans forthe economic development of the territories,particularly for the territory of Niue, in order,among other things, to decrease Niue's economicdependence on the administering power.


Australia, the United Kingdom, the UnitedStates, and New Zealand (which participatedin the Special Committee's discussion) consid-ered that Sub-Committee II had not takenadequate account of the geographical, economic,social and political conditions in the territories,and that the conclusions and recommendationswere divorced from reality.

Similar reservations were expressed by Fin-land and Italy. The representative of NewZealand said that his Government was assistingin the advancement towards self-determinationof Niue and the Tokelaus as rapidly as theislanders themselves deemed appropriate. Thepeoples of these islands were well aware of theprovisions of the General Assembly's resolutionon the granting of independence. It had beentranslated into their languages and widely dis-tributed.

In the course of the discussion, Chile saidit was becoming more urgent every day to makea thorough analysis of the problem of whathad been described as "micro-states," as it wasnot possible to consider the situation of suchterritories by following general rules and stand-ards. In this connexion the representative ofthe United Republic of Tanzania urged thatthe Special Committee must reiterate the prin-ciple accepted by the overwhelming majorityof United Nations Members that althoughterritories were isolated and small, the peoplecf those territories had the right to choosewhatever political future they wished, and shouldbe given every opportunity to express themselvesfully.

Several members, including India, Madagas-car, Mali, Syria, Tunisia and the United Re-public of Tanzania, stressed the importance ofsending a visiting mission to Niue and the Toke-lau islands. The representative of New Zealandsaid that it had never excluded the possibilityof a visit before the right of self-determinationwas exercised, but in its view it would be un-reasonable and expensive to send a mission totwo of the smallest and remotest territories un-less that mission was also making a wider tourof the area.

With regard to the New Hebrides—a con-dominium administered by France and theUnited Kingdom—the Special Committee en-dorsed the conclusions and recommendations

proposed by Sub-Committee II. Stating that itwas fully aware of the peculiar problems ofthe territory, the Special Committee reiteratedits view that the question of size, isolation andlimited resources should in no way delay theimplementation of the Declaration on the grant-ing of independence. It regretted that no addi-tional information had been provided by theadministering powers; noted with concern thatthere were still no representative institutionsin the territory; and regretted that the adminis-tering power had made no proposals for thespeedy implementation of the Declaration inthe territory.

The Special Committee further recommendedthat the administering powers take urgentmeasures to introduce representative politicalinstitutions and executive machinery, in con-formity with the principles of the UnitedNations Charter and the provisions of the Dec-laration, in order to give the people of theNew Hebrides the earliest opportunity to ex-press their wishes with regard to the imple-mentation of the Declaration through well-established democratic processes based on theprinciple of universal adult suffrage.

The Special Committee also invited the ad-ministering powers to reconsider their attitudesin regard to visiting missions and to allow asub-committee to visit the territory. It recom-mended further that they intensify the economic,social and educational advancement of the terri-tory, through a concerted effort, and that theysecure the active participation of representa-tives of the people in the process; and, finally,that they seek the advice of the United Nationsspecialized agencies in formulating and imple-menting plans for this purpose.

Reservations concerning the report as a wholewere made by Australia, the United Kingdomand the United States.

On 7 November 1968, the Special Committeeapproved the report of Sub-Committee II con-cerning Guam and American Samoa, and en-dorsed its conclusions and recommendations.Fully aware of the special circumstances ofgeographical location and economic conditionsin the two territories, the Special Committeereiterated its view that the question of size,isolation and limited resources should in noway delay the implementation of the Déclara-


tion on the granting of independence. It notedwith concern that recent constitutional changesin the territories were insufficient to enable thepeople to determine their future except in termsof complete association with the administeringpower, and recommended that greater responsi-bilities be transferred to representatives of thepeople.

The Special Committee was of the view thatthe establishment of military bases in Guam wasincompatible with the purposes and principlesof the Charter and of the General Assembly'sresolution (1514 (XV)) on the granting of in-dependence. It reiterated its view that the pri-mary dependence of the economy of Guam onthe military activities of the administeringpower should be reduced by greatly diversify-ing the economy of the territory. The adminis-tering power was again requested to intensifyeducational and training facilities so as to en-able the people of the territories to occupymore responsible positions and play a largerrole in the economy. The Committee invitedthe administering power to reconsider its posi-tion concerning visiting missions and allow asub-committee to visit the territories.

Before adopting the report on Guam andAmerican Samoa, the Special Committee, atthe request of the United States, voted sepa-rately on the paragraph referring to the estab-lishment of military bases on Guam. The para-graph was adopted by 11 votes to 6, with 4 ab-stentions.

The United States representative expressedstrong objections to this paragraph and assertedthat no provision of the United Nations Charterwas opposed to the establishment of a militarybase in Guam. There was no evidence that thebase had been used for purposes incompatiblewith the Charter or that it had impeded theterritory's progress. Reservations on this para-graph were also expressed by Iran, the IvoryCoast, Madagascar and Venezuela.

Reservations to several or all of the SpecialCommittee's conclusions were made by Aus-tralia, the USSR, the United Republic of Tan-zania and the United States.

The United Republic of Tanzania objectedin particular to the paragraph on constitutionalchanges. Since the administering power hadnot co-operated sufficiently in placing informa-

tion at the Sub-Committee's disposal, the Spe-cial Committee should have condemned anddeplored its attitude.

In addition to expressing reservations, theUSSR proposed amendments to two paragraphsof the recommendation and conclusions but didnot press them to a vote. By the first amend-ment, the Special Committee would condemnthe recent constitutional changes in Guam andAmerican Samoa, which did not enable thepeople of the territories to determine their fu-ture except in terms of complete associationwith the administering power. By the secondamendment, the Special Committee would ex-press the feeling that economic progress in theterritories was unsatisfactory.


Later in 1968, at the twenty-third session ofthe General Assembly, the Assembly's FourthCommittee considered the Special Committee'sreport on the above territories. During the dis-cussion, a number of representatives maintainedthat no substantial progress had been achievedin the process of decolonization, owing to theopposition of the administering powers, andcriticized the refusal of these powers to allowthe small territories to exercise their right ofindependence and self-determination, irrespec-tive of size, or of economic, geographical, demo-graphic or other factors. The representativesof Poland and India pointed out that effectivepower was not in the hands of the indigenouspopulations. The colonial powers were resortingto varied methods and delaying tactics to pro-long their domination. The same old methodsof exploiting the people and their land werestill being used. In the Seychelles, for example,there was a ruling class composed of Europeanlandowners, and a lower class principally com-posed of Africans. The USSR representativestated that the introduction of new legislationin some territories had little meaning and thenew status conferred on a number of territoriesin the West Indies, including the so-called"association" with the colonial power, repre-sented annexation pure and simple.

Various Members, including Barbados, Ma-laysia and Trinidad and Tobago, thought thatconsiderations of geographical situation and eco-


nomic conditions should not serve as an excusefor delaying the application of the Assembly'sresolution ( 1514 (XV) ), on the granting of inde-pendence. Tunisia and the USSR consideredthat the administering powers should be calledupon to apply the principle of self-determina-tion without delay, and to transfer all powersas soon as possible to the representatives of thepeople.

The question of "association" was also re-ferred to by others. Madagascar said that thepopulations of the small territories should beafforded the opportunity of associating with anindependent State or group of States, with thehelp of the United Nations, should the territorynot be economically viable. Trinidad and To-bago thought that a people might decide toassociate with the United Nations, with a re-gional organization or with a league of States.Barbados considered that the United Kingdomshould continue to transmit information on theCaribbean territories which enjoyed the statusof associate statehood. The United Kingdom'sresponsibility for the external affairs of thoseterritories carried with it the obligation to dealwith the United Nations on their behalf andto transmit to it the wishes of their people. TheDemocratic Republic of the Congo said thatso long as the people chose their own futureby democratic means, without any economic ormilitary pressure, there was nothing against"association" with the administering power. Itwas indispensable to close down the militarybases and reduce the economic dependence ofthose territories.

Several other Members—including Algeria,the Byelorussian SSR, the Democratic Repub-lic of the Congo, India, Kenya, Poland, Tunisia,the USSR, the United Arab Republic and theUnited Republic of Tanzania—called attentionto the establishment or continued existence ofmilitary bases maintained by administering pow-ers in small territories, and they called for theremoval of such bases.

The representative of India denounced thedecision of the United Kingdom to separatethree of the Seychelles and form a "BritishIndian Ocean Territory" for military purposes.Such an action violated the territorial integrityof the Seychelles, and the construction of mili-tary bases in that territory would increase the

tension in Africa and Asia and would hamperthe implementation of the Declaration on thegranting of independence. Poland and theUSSR accused the colonial powers of convert-ing the small territories, such as Guam, intomilitary bases from which they carried out theirrepressive wars. The United Republic of Tan-zania referred particularly to the strategic im-portance of small territories within the globalpolicies of the colonial powers and consideredthat the maintenance of bases and troops incolonial territories was a threat to neighbouringindependent States.

Some Members, including Algeria, Barbados,Iraq, Madagascar, Tunisia, and the UnitedArab Republic, pointed out that the UnitedNations had always stressed the importance andusefulness of sending missions to the territoriesto obtain first-hand information on the situationand on the views of the inhabitants concerningtheir future. The representative of India statedthat administering powers had continued tomaintain their intransigent attitude on thequestion of visiting missions, and the Assemblyshould use all its influence to ensure that thatattitude changed.

Speaking in reply, the United Kingdom rep-resentative said that there had been substantialconstitutional progress with regard to the pro-cess of decolonization in United Kingdom terri-tories over the past year. Although the UnitedKingdom Government could not yet say exactlywhat the constitutional future of many of thosesmall territories would be, it would be guidedby the principles which it had adopted in thepast: the wishes of the people concerned wouldbe its main guide to action. In nearly all theterritories, there was active discussion amongthe political parties and the public of the nextstages in constitutional advance and the mostappropriate legal status for each of them.

New Zealand's representative held the viewthat, for the remaining small territories, thegreatest problems were their small size, remote-ness and lack of resources. It was unlikely, there-fore, that the Fourth Committee could in afew hours of debate deal usefully with the rangeof problems entailed in the future of such terri-tories. In the New Zealand territories of Niueand Tokelau, it was the people themselves whowished to avoid haste in deciding their future.


At the conclusion of the debate, a draft reso-lution was submitted by Algeria, Burundi, Ethi-opia, Ghana, India, Mauritania, Morocco, Si-erra Leone, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, the UnitedArab Republic, the United Republic of Tan-zania, and Yugoslavia concerning the questionof American Samoa, Antigua, Bahamas, Ber-muda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands,Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Dominica, Gilbert andEllice Islands, Grenada, Guam, Montserrat,New Hebrides, Niue, Pitcairn, St. Helena, St.Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent,Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tokelau Islands,Turks and Caicos Islands and the United StatesVirgin Islands.

By the preambular part of the text, the Gen-eral Assembly would, among other things: ex-press deep concern at the policy of some of theadministering powers in establishing and main-taining military bases in some of the territoriesunder their administration in contravention ofthe relevant General Assembly resolutions; de-plore the attitude of the administering powerswhich continued to refuse to allow United Na-tions visiting groups to visit the territories undertheir administration ; and state that it was awareof the special circumstances of the geographicallocation and economic conditions of these terri-tories.

By the operative part of the resolution, theGeneral Assembly would: (1) approve the chap-ters of the Special Committee's report relatingto these territories; (2) reaffirm the inalienableright of the peoples to self-determination andindependence; (3) call upon the administeringpowers to implement without delay the relevantresolutions of the General Assembly; (4) re-iterate that any attempt aimed at the partialor total disruption of the national unity andthe territorial integrity of colonial territories

and the establishment of military bases andinstallations in these territories was incompatiblewith the purposes and principles of the UnitedNations Charter and of the General Assembly'sresolution (1514(XV)) on the granting of in-dependence; (5) urge the administering powersto allow United Nations visiting groups to visitthe territories and to extend to them full co-operation and assistance; (6) decide that theUnited Nations should render all help to thepeoples of these territories in their efforts freelyto decide their future status; and (7) requestthe Special Committee to continue to pay spe-cial attention to these territories and to reportto the twenty-fourth (1969) Assembly sessionon the implementation of the resolution.

On 16 December 1968, the Fourth Committeeapproved the draft resolution as a whole by74 votes to 1, with 16 abstentions. On 18 De-cember, the General Assembly adopted thetext, by a recorded vote of 89 to 2, with 22abstentions, as resolution 2430(XXIII).

A separate vote was taken, both in the FourthCommittee and in the plenary meeting of theAssembly, on the paragraph declaring that anyattempt aimed at the partial or total disruptionof the national unity and the territorial integrityof colonial territories and the establishment ofmilitary bases and installations in these terri-tories was incompatible with the purposes andprinciples of the Charter and of the GeneralAssembly's resolution (1514(XV)) on thegranting of independence. The Fourth Com-mittee approved the paragraph by 48 votes to13, with 23 abstentions, and the General As-sembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 68to 16, with 29 abstentions.

(For text of resolution and details of the vot-ing, See DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)


Special Committee on Situation with regard to Im-plementation of Declaration on Granting of Inde-pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,meetings 583, 584, 594, 596, 597, 599-608, 611-613616, 617, 619, 620, 628, 630, 644, 646-649.


Fourth Committee, meetings 1766, 1791-1802, 1814.Plenary Meeting 1747.

A/7200/Rev.l. Report of Special Committee ofTwenty-four (covering its work during 1968).Chapter I, sections IV and XI (d) ; Annexes I-IV;Chapter X: Swaziland; Chapter XI, Mauritius;Chapter XII: Seychelles and St. Helena; ChapterXVIII: Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Pitcairn andSolomon Islands; Chapter XIX: Niue and TokelauIslands; Chapter XX: New Hebrides; ChapterXXI: Guam and American Samoa; Chapter XXII:


Cayman Islands, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Dominica,Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Grenada, Guam, Montser-rat, New Hebrides, Niue, Pitcairn, St. Helena, St.Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Sey-chelles, Solomon Islands, Tokelau Islands, Turks andCaicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands,

Having examined the chapters of the report of theSpecial Committee on the Situation with regard tothe Implementation of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples relating to these Territories,

Recalling its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December1960 containing the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples andother relevant resolutions,

Deeply concerned at the policy of some of theadministering Powers in establishing and maintainingmilitary bases in some of the Territories under theiradministration, in contravention of the relevant Gen-eral Assembly resolutions,

Deploring the attitude of the administering Powerswhich continue to refuse to allow United Nationsvisiting groups to visit the Territories under theiradministration,

Conscious that these Territories require the con-tinued attention and assistance of the United Nationsin the achievement by their peoples of the objectivesembodied in the Charter of the United Nations andin the Declaration on the Granting of Independenceto Colonial Countries and Peoples,

Aware of the special circumstances of the geograph-ical location and economic conditions of these Terri-

Trust Territory of Pacific Islands; Chapter XXIII:Papua and Trust Territory of New Guinea andCocos (Keeling) Islands; Chapter XXIV: Brunei;Chapter XXV: Hong Kong; Chapter XXVI:Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia and St. Vincent; ChapterXXVII: United States Virgin Islands; ChapterXXVIII: Bermuda, Bahamas, Turks and CaicosIslands, Cayman Islands and Montserrat; ChapterXXIX: British Virgin Islands; Chapter XXXI:British Honduras.

A/C.4/L.927 and Add.l Algeria, Burundi, Ethiopia,Ghana, India, Mauritania, Morocco, Sierra Leone,Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Republic,United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia: draftresolution, approved by Fourth Committee on 16December 1968, meeting 1814, by 74 votes to 1,with 16 abstentions.

A/7401. Letter of 9 December 1968 from UnitedStates concerning Guam.

A/7419. Report of Fourth Committee, on territoriesnot considered separately, draft resolution III.

RESOLUTION 2430(xxiii), as recommended by FourthCommittee, A/7419, adopted by Assembly on 18December 1968, meeting 1747. by recorded vote of89 to 2, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia,Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR,Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic,Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo(Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of Congo,Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Dominican Re-public, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea,Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti,Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,Ireland, Israel, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan,Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Ma-dagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius,Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Paki-stan, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania,Rwanda, Saudi Arabia. Senegal, Sierra Leone,Singapore, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Spain,Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey,Uganda, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Re-public, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta,Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.Against: Barbados,* South Africa.Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy,Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldive Islands,Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway,Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom,United States.

* Subsequently, the delegation of Barbados informedthe Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.

The General Assembly,Having considered the question of American Samoa,

Antigua, Bahamas, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands,

tones,1. Approves the chapters of the report of the

Special Committee on the Situation with regard tothe Implementation of the Declaration on the Grant-ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peo-ples relating to these Territories;

2. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples ofthese Territories to self-determination and independ-ence;

3. Calls upon the administering Powers to imple-ment without delay the relevant resolutions of theGeneral Assembly;

4. Reiterates its declaration that any attemptaimed at the partial or total disruption of the nationalunity and the territorial integrity of colonial Terri-tories and the establishment of military bases andinstallations in these Territories is incompatible withthe purposes and principles of the Charter of theUnited Nations and of General Assembly resolution1514(XV);

5. Urges the administering Powers to allow UnitedNations visiting groups to visit the Territories and toextend to them full co-operation and assistance;

6. Decides that the United Nations should renderall help to the peoples of these Territories in theirefforts freely to decide their future status;

7. Requests the Special Committee to continue topay special attention to these Territories and to reportto the General Assembly at its twenty-fourth sessionon the implementation of the present resolution.

Date post:	07-Apr-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

[ 1968 ] Part 1 Sec 3 Chapter 2 The Situation with Regard ...

Documents