blyeeÿ

Le I

f

'United Nations

GENERALASSEMBLYTWENTIETH SESSION

Official Records

f}

CONTENTS

Agenda item 107:

The inadmissibility of intervention in thedomestic affairs of States and the Protec-tion of t/2eir independence and sovereignty(continued)General debate (continued) ; ........... 30K

Chairman: Mr. Kÿroly CSATORDAY (Hungary).

NEW YORK

AGENDA ITEM 107The inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic

affairs of States and the protection of their inde-

pendence and sovereignty (confin d) (A/5977;A/C.1/L.343/Rev. I , L.34£/Reÿÿdd. i' L.350end Corr. ], L.351, L.352, L.353/Rev.2, L.354)

GENERAL DEBATE (continued)1. Mr. PANNI (Pakistan) said he was grateful to therepresentative of the USSR for having focused theAssembly,s attention on the need to re-emphasize theprinciple of non-intervention, for that principle wasas readily violated in deed as it was accepted inWOrds and therefore needed periodic reaffirmation.He welcomed the fact that the eighteen Latin AmericanStates, the United Arab Republic, the United Statesand the United Kingdom had submitted draft resolu-tions or amendments, which would be useful in the

preparation of a joint text. Motivated by the samedesire, the Pakistan delegation had submitted amend-ments (A/C.1/L.352) to the USSR draft resolution

(A/C. 1/L.343/Rev.1).2. The principle of non-intervention was a corollaryof the principle of the sovereign equality of States.In the context of the present world situation, its re-

Peated violation was bound to become a source ofinternational friction and thus a threat to world peaceand security. In his delegation,s view, that oonsidera_tion should be incorporated in the preamble to any

proposed declaration.

3. He thought it pointless to dwell on the definitionof the term "intervention,, the essential thing beingthat intervention in all its forms, direct and indirect,should be unequivocally condemned.

4. History showed that the weaker countries hadlways been the victims of periodic intervention in

:heir internal affairs; today, too, reactionary forces,:acism, colonialism and neo-colonialism were poisedo undermine the independence and economic progressf those countries. It must be recognized, however,at those forces did not emanate from only one

quarter and were not the monopoly of one people.Duge For the proposed declaration to be effective, there-

fore, it must not be directed against a particular

State or group of States.5. It was essential also to ensure that the principleof non-intervention could not be interpreted cynically.There were States which denied their peoples themost fundamental human rights and which, when con-demned, hid behind the perversely interpreted prin-Ciple of non-interrelation. There were other Stateswhich had seized certain areas and were trying toannex them by denying their peoples their right ofself-determination. To consolidate their rule and tocrush the will of the people, they did not hesitate toemploy measures amounting to genocide. When theworld community expressed its concern at. suchbarbarous acts, those States pleaded that such mat-ters were essentially within their domestic jurisdic-tion. Such attempts to justify violations of the UnitedNations Charter should be Condemned in clear andunequivocal terms in the proposed declaration.

6. The first of the three amendments submitted by ......Pakistan (A/C.1/L.352) sought simply to register thefact that international agreements and the resolutionsof the United Nations were as much a source ofinternational law as the United Nations Charter.The principle of non-intervention should not serveas an excuse for the evasion of obligations acceptedby States under international agreements or UnitedNations resolutions. A chaotic position would resultif the Assembly were to formulate the principle ofnon-intervention in a way that Would throw intodoubt the binding nature of obligations undertaken in

international treaties.

7. The second amendment was self-explanatory andhe would like to see it incorporated both in the pre-amble and in paragraph 3 of the Soviet draft, and inany other text commonly agreed upon.

8. The last amendment sought to make clear one ofthe moral and political implications of the principleof non-intervention. It was evident that the refusal ofa State to resolve an international dispute by recog-nized methods exerted a pressure on the destiny ofother States which amounted to the deadliest and most

insidious intervention.

9. The last phrase of the Pakistan amendment didnot seek to expunge the reservations which Memberstates had made in 'accepting the jurisdiction of theInternational Court of Justice. It accordingly did notmake it compulsory for States to have recourse onlyto the International Court. They could employ othermethods, namely negotiation, mediation or arbitration.But if those other methods failed to produce any re-suit, then the obligation imposed on Member States

305

O4

306 General Assembly -- Twentieth Session -- First Committee

by Article 33 of the Charter should not be consideredto have been exhausted. In that event, the only otherpossible method was that of judicial settlement.

10. Peaceful settlement of disputes between Statesmust become a sine qua non for the conduct of inter-national relations. The principle in question, whichhad already been incorporated in the Charter, mustbe reasserted. His delegation therefore requested theCommittee to give its suggestion careful consideration.

South-East Asia and throughout the world. The 'UnitedStates had no right to act in that way; it was guidedonly by arbitrary principles both in Viet-Nam and inthe Dominican Republic. It was that that "shoulddisturb the peace-loving forces, and not the allegeddangers of world communism.

ii. Mr. FEDORENKO (Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics) stressed the importance of the questionof the inadmissibility of intervention in the domesticaffairs of States and the protection of their inde-pendence and sovereignty--a question which had beenplaced on the General Assembly's agenda on the pro-posal of the Soviet Union. The representatives of theoverwhelming majority of African, Asian and LatinAmerican States had expressed their adherence tothat principle and voices had been raised in con-detonation of the acts of certain Powers which wereengaging in military intervention and infringing theindependence and sovereignty of young States. The ap-plication of the principle of non-intervention wouldserve primarily the vital interests of the smallStates, which must be protected against the arbitraryacts of the imperialists. No ideological, economic,political or other motive could justify interferencein the domestic affairs of States. Every people hadthe sacred right to decide how its own developmentwas to take place and to determine its future as itsaw fit; that was an element&ry rule by which allStates should be guided in their international relations.

13. It was significant that the amendments submittedby the United States (A/C.1/L.350 and Corr.1) and theUnited Kingdom (A/C.1/L.351) to the Soviet draftdeclaration on the inadmissibility of intervention inthe domestic affairs of States were designedbasieallyto alter its substance and to confuse the issue. Theywere directed against national liberation movementswhich, as was well known, the imperialists called"subversive activity", and they sought to block con-

sideration of the question before the Committee. Norcould it be overlooked that the Latin American draftresolution (A/C.I/L.349/Rev.I and Add.l)unfortu-nately contained provisions that were hardly likely topromote the principle of non-intervention, althoughhewas fully aware of those countries'good intentions andtheir efforts to ensure the application of that principle.Interventionists might use certain parts of that draftresolution to justify interference in the LatinAmericancountries. His delegation was therefore unable to sup-port that draft.

12. His delegation was gratified that the SovietGovernment's initiative had me[ with such broadunderstanding on the part of the great majority ofrepresentatives. It noted, however, that in the courseof the debate some delegations had tended to divertattention from the main issue, which was the armedinterventions now taking place in several parts of theworld. Some had referred in particular to the variousforms of indirect intervention in the domestic affairsof States, and others' had gone so far as to condemnnational liberation movements, and even to makecommunism the root of all evil. However that mightbe, certain imperialist Powers : were interferingmost blatantly in the internal affairs of other Stateson the pretext that the latter were being subjectedto subversion. That attitude was fraught with dangerousconsequences and, after the Dominican Republic,Panama and the Congo, one might wonder who would bethe next victim. It must not be forgotten that the mainreason for the existing explosive situation was preÿ-cisely armed intervention in the affairs of States. Thatwas the source of international tension and it was thatintervention which wÿs gravely threatening the inde-pendence and sovereignty of States and peoples. TheUnited States was endeavouring to achieve its selfishaims by resort to force and armed intervention. Indoing so it vÿas trampling upon all the principles ofthe United Nations Charter and upon internationalagreements and the generally accepted rules ofinternational law. At the present time it was slaughter-ing innocent people in Viet-Nam and seeking to imposeits will on an Asian people. The war being waged in

14. The discussion of the item under consideration hadbeen very useful and many delegations had made con-structive statements prompted by the desire to safe-guard the peace and by the need to put an end tointervention in the domestic affairs of States. That draftresolution submitted by the United Arab Republicand a number of other countries (A/C.I/L.353/Rev.2)contained some useful provisions which were also tobe found in the Soviet draft. The latter text servedthe interests of all peoples and in particular thoseof the small countries of Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica. He appealed to all members of the Com-mittee to support the ideas set out in the Soviet textand to facilitate the adoption of a decision whichwould meet the demands of the present internationalsituation.

15. The Committee had the opportunity to formulateforthwith a document which would enable the UnitedNations to make a major contribution towards pro-tecting the independence and sovereignty of thecountries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, de-fending peace and freedom and putting an end tointernational bringandage, armed intervention andother forms of interference in the domestic affairsof States. The Committee must not simply file awaya question of such great importance. The peoples ex-pected the United Nations not to engage in sterile andendless dÿseussions but to take practical measures assoon as possible. If it failed to do so, it would notjustify the hopes of the peoples whichwere vehementlyprotesting against the interventions of certain im-perialist Powers. All who really wished to put an endto aggression and the violation of the fundamentalprinciples of the United Nations Charter and of inter-national law should repulse the attempts that werebeing made to prevent the speedy adoption of adeclaration on the inadmissibility of intervention inthe domestic affairs of Stnÿ ÿa ÿh,ÿ nÿ ^ÿ

L

[

......... uÿ apply theicleallsm expressed, for example, in the UnitedNations Charter. The power of an idea should not beunderestimated: the United Nations was a POliticalinstitution, but the more the great Principles of theCharter were embodied in resolutions, the moresolid would be the foundations of the internationalOrganization. The role which a small country such'" as Syria could play derived from the sum of its ex-

perience as a part of the developing and non-aligned.world, as a part of the Arab world and as a countrywhich had been under the yoke of imperialism and hadsuffered the repeated humiliation of having its terri-tory divided and sub-divided. Those three factors

placed that small country in opposition to Westernimperialism and, in that connexion, he described thestages of a policy represented successively by the"defence of the Middle East',, the Baghdad Pact and

the Eisenhower Doctrine. In fact, the aim of that

policy had been not to defend the Arab world but tocheck communism; events had proved, however, thatthe real enemy in that part of the world was notcommunism but imperialism and rico-colonialism,as had been shown by the aggression perpeiratedagainst Egypt. As John F. Kennedy himself had ad-mitted in one of his books, the concepts of theBaghdad Pact and the Eisenhower Doctrine wereunhappy monuments to Mr. Dulles in the Middle East.

17. From those historic trials had emerged positiveneutralism--a doctrine ÿvhich recognized the right ofeach people to its own appropriate way of life, evolu-tion and institutions. Each people should be able tobenefit from outside experience but be able to embarkon the course of its choice without outside inter-ference. Those principles had found expression insection II of the Declaration adopted at the Conferenceof Heads of State or Government of Non-AlignedCountries, held at Belgrade in 1961. Internationally,neutralism meant both non-alignment and the rejec-tion of aggression or intervention under any guise,and nationally, it implied the strengthening of inde-

pendence and sovereignty, freedom to develop withoutany outside interference, and efforts to achieveeconomic and social progress, using the best available

experience of mankind.

18. That philosophy, if applied to the question underconsideration, meant that disputes among StatesCould not be resolved by direct or indirect interven-tion but only by the influence of world public opinion,as interpreted in the United Nations. The Organization

pointed the way in three main directions: against im-Perialism and neo-imperialism, through independenceand sovereignty; through liberation, against domina-tion; and through free economic and social progress,against the exploitation of man by man. The inadmissi-bility of intervention thus seemed to be a self-evidenttruth. Even in the West, voices were being raisedwarning against the dangers of a holocaust; as proof,he quoted the recent statement by the National Councilof Churches in the United States on the conflict inViet-Nam. The deliberations of the First Committeehad served a very useful purpose--the elucidation of a

problem which lay at the very heart of contemporarysociety. The inadmissibility of intervention in the

........... ÿuvereÿgnty were self-evident con-cepts, and it was to be hoped that they would become

evident to all.

19. Mr. RAFAEL (Israel} welcomed the considerationby the Committee of the important and timely subjectof the inadmissibility of intervention in the domesticaffairs of States and the protection of their inde-

pendence and sovereignty.20. Many attempts had been made by the UnitedNations to define with greater piÿecision the basic

principles of the Charter, not because they were in-adequate but because there was a wideninggap betweenthe principles and their application. In 1961, whenaddressing the General Assemblyl/Mrs. Melt, theForeign Minister of Israel, had emphasized the needto reaffirm the principles of respect for territorialintegrity and Political independence, of non-inter-vention and of the peaceful settlement of disputes, inan instrument binding on all Member States, whichwould unreservedly pledge themselves to implementthem in their international relations. The SovietGovernment, on its side, had made a similarproposalin December 1963, for the renunciation of the use offorce in the settlement of territorial disputes. Mr.Eban, the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, hadstressed in the debate on that subject at the nine-teenth session of the GeneralAssembly2/ that the mosturgent need was to reaffirm the right of States tOmaintain their political independence and territorialintegrity in strict avoidance of the threat or use offorce, that there was wider agreement than ever be-fore on the need to maintain the integrity of theWorld's territorial structure and that in future manshould devote his energies to liberating society from

ec0nomic and socialfrontiers by force, servitudes rather than to changing

21. His delegation had hoped that the debate on the

question under consideration would distinguish itselfby an earnest search for common ground on whichto build a most stable and peaceful internationalorder. Indeed, the statements made by the Latin

American countries, andtheir draft• resolution, showedthe wisdom of those countries, which, having learned

the hard Way how to protect their independence andsovereignty, had based their relations on instrumentswhich all should emulate. Unfortunatelyÿ the discus-sion had sometimes taken a disappointing turn. Itappeared to have been more of a free-for-ill forsettling accounts than an effort to advance the settlingof disputes. There were currently over thirty-fiveterritorial disputes in the world represented in theCommittee, not counting'ideological differences. Thosedisputes ranged from open military action to long-

pending practices of belligerency, from threats tothe territorial integrity of sovereign Member Statesto unabated incitement to subversion and terroristaction. The Committee,s task was not to fight thosespecific disputes over the Committee table but tofind a common denominator for international con-duct which would facilitate the settlement of those

problems. Yet certain texts which had been sub-

rds of the General Assernbl , SiXteenth Sessionbl ,SiXteenth Session,

2/Ibid., Nineteenth Session, Plenary Meetings, 1296th meeting.

fi

I

,ÿ1I, ,:ÿ

Iÿ ,

: I!!/ l!:i,

' 308 General Assembly Twentieth Session -- First .Committee

mitted to the Committee included provisions whichwould not strengthen but would undermine the veryprinciple of non-intervention because their sponsors,although they claimed to condemn intervention in thedomestic affairs of States, had left escape clausesthat in fact would encourage irredentist movementsto serve as a pretext for foreign intervention.

22. In addressing the General Assembly at thenineteenth session, the Foreign Minister of theSoviet Union had correctly stated that territorialdisputes among sovereign States, as well as anyother disputes between States', should be solved

. exclusively through peaceful means. 3!

23. Many representatives had pointed out the dangerof indirect acts of intervention. In that connexion,he wouid draw attention to the harmful effects ofcertain radio programmes whose aim was to threatensovereign States with aggression or incite theirpopulations to civil strife. The radio was known toexert a powerful influence and its misuse constituteda means of indirect intervention. That instrument ofsubversion should therefore be specifically men-tioned in any text dealing with the forms of indirectintervention.

24. It was not enough to reiterate pious aspirations;what was needed was a declaration which would havea practical effect, was unambiguous and non-conten-tious. The effort to achieve that objective should byall means be pursued and, if necessary, somewhatmore time and tolerance should be devoted to it,because a declaration solidly built on the Charterwould help to consolidate a more stable and peacefulorder. It was that objective which should be sought.

25. Mr. BURNS (Canada) said that it would be verydifficult to devise a declaration to which the largemajority could adhere. As several representativeshad pointed out, the question under consideration hadalready been studied and would undoubtedly be studiedfurther by the Special Committee on Principles ofInternational Law concerning Friendly Relations andCo-operation among States, which had met at MexicoCity; in addition, it seemed that the Sixth Committeewas going to ask the Special Committee era newspecial committee to consider inter alia the principleof non-intervention with a view to submitting adeclaration or statement dealing with all the princi-ples of friendly relations to the General Assemblyat its twenty-first session. Experience had shown,with respect to the definition of aggression, howdifficult it was to give precise meaning to such im-portant concepts; the First Committee was engagedin an extremely delicate task, requiring patient andthorough efforts if a genuine consensus was to bereached. In view o;f the stage reached in the Com-mittee,s discussions, the Canadian delegation con-sidered that the best course, when the general debatehad been concluded, would be to refer the questionfor further consideration by the Special Committee,which would naturally bear in mind all the remarksand proposals made in the First Committee.

26. His delegation did not wish to enter into a de-tailed discussion of the various draft resolutionssubmitted and reserved the right to explain its

3/ lhÿa looÿ_ÿ ._

point of view if it was decided to vote on them. Itwould be guided largely by the need to take intoaccount forms of intervention which had now be-come one of the principal sources of concern to theinternational community. Canada shared, for example,the concern felt by the sponsors of the Latin Ameri-can draft resolution about the use of direct forms ofintervention and the increasing recourse to indirectforms of intervention; its experience in South-EastAsia had enabled it to a.ssess the importance of Statesrefraining from interference in their neighbours,affairs. For example, when the report of the Inter-national Commission for Supervision and Control inLaos to the Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conferencehad been issued, the Canadian Government had hadoccasion to point out the acts of aggression committedagainst Laos by the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, in violation of the Declaration on the Neutralityof Laos and its Protocol, which had been signed by theGovernment of North Viet-Nam. With regard to thesituation in Viet-Nam itself, it was sufficient to re-call the words of the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr.Pearson, to the effect that there could be no "per-missible,, kinds of international violence. .; ....

27. Consequently, any declaration on the subject of •non-intervention should have the full support of the :world community and should be broad enough to/embrace the type of intervention which began in aclandestine way and employed the techniques of sub-.version and terrorism. The United Nations must enÿsure that any declaration adopted on that subjeeÿ :would carry with it the full commitment of Stateÿto respect its principles in their relations with theiÿneighbours and other States. It was therefore essen4tial that such a declaration should receive the over-:whelming support of the entire membership of thelGeneral Assembly. In order to achieve that aim, igreater attention should be paid to the drafting of aItext which could be adopted unanimously; several[representatives had said that they were engaged in,consultations witha view to producing a joint texÿ/and there was nothing he would like better than thatthose efforts should be crowned with success, butthe attitude of the Soviet Union towards the othertexts gave little ground for optimism. That was why'the Special Committee, whose work had alreadyproduced positive results in the search for a con4sensus on another subject and which was to meetagain in 1966, seemed ideally-suited to study theÿdraft resolutions and the amendments currently beingconsidered in the First Committee. That procedurewould not involve any undue delay because the Special ÿCommittee would undoubtedly report to the GeneralAssembly at its twenty-first session. It would havemuch more time than the First Committee to resolvedifferences of views; if it succeeded in that task, ÿ,ÿit would have made a marked contribution to the ÿ_!

achievement of friendly relations among States anda stronger basis for international security.

Mr. Fahrny (United Arab Republic), Rapporteur,took the Chair.

28. Mr. ROSSIDES (Cyprus) said that the UnitedNations Charter was based fundamentally on the

J

i

!

...... ÿgamst the territorial

I integrity or political independence of any State.-i From those principles flowed the principle of non-I intervention by States in the domestic affairs of/ other States, the significance of which for peacet could not be too strongly emphasized It must, how-

ever, be acknowledged that those principles wereiunfortunately not respected and that action must betaken to ensure their better application. To that end,the General Assembly had, at its seventeenth andeighteenth sessions, entrusted a Special Committeewith the study of certain principles of international

r law concerning friendly relations and co-operation

i e thcise a naa a duty to exer-a restraining influence by restating and clarifYingthe meaning, content and scope of those principles ina solemn declaration. The Charter WOuld thus berevitalized and in addition the possibility of adducinga wrong interpretation of its provisions to justifY itsviolation Would be eliminated. The interest displayed" by members of the Committee in the debate also

showed the importance and timeliness of the itembefore it. While stressing different aspects of thematter, all were agreed in their COndemnation ofintervention. The Soviet delegation was therefore tobe congratulated on having initiated such a valuabledebate.

29. History showed that the escalation of interven_tion in the affairs of Small States always led tocatastrophic wars. Intervention, whether direct orindirect, whether rooted in colonialism or foreigndictatorship or in unequal or illegal treaties, alwaysproceeded from the concept of force and domination.One of its most sinister forms was that concealedunder a cloak of supposed legality, because it thenbecame unabashed, particularly when it was claimedto be in exercise of treaty }ights. His delegationwas particularly opposed to that form of interven_tion. Treaties which PUrported to confer upon aState a right of intervention in the domestic affairsof another State, such as matters relating to itsconstitution and internal administration, violated theprinciple of sovereign equality, and particularly theright of each State to choose its constitution and itspolitical, social, economic and cultural systems,since those matters were the very substance ofinternal sovereignty and independence, and it wastherefore inconceivable that a State Could contractout of them, by treaty or in any other way, and stillremain a sovereign, independent State. Furthermore,such a treaty would be contrary to Article 2, para-

graph 7, of the Charter, which, by prohibiting inter-vention by the United Nations in matters which wereessentially within the domestic jurisdiction of anyState, ÿ ruled out such intervention byindividual States. Such a treaty, being in conflictWith Charter obligations, was therefore invalid and

inoperative.

30. It should be borne in mind that that theory wasnot new. Even before the establishment of the UnitedNations, any treaty which purported to confer upon aState the right of intervention in the domestic af-fairs of another State under the guise of a treaty of

....... ÿ*au already been.... uÿnmea as illegal, for example by Professor

William Edward Hall inLaw, and by the ÿeatise on Internationalgreat jÿÿalso established a distinction between external andinternal independence. It had long been generallyrecognized by jurists, therefore, that the essenceof a State's internal independence could not berestricted by treaty, for the effect of such a treatywould be to reduce the State concerned to the status

of a protectorate or trust terr"patlble W2th the soverei ..... ÿory, a status incom-

• ÿy or an independent State

and United Nations membership, as recognized byArticle 78 of the Charter. That thesis was clearly setout in Professor Ellery C. Stowell,s work Interven_

t(nternational" Law, ubli hodmade mandatory under Articles in 1921, and was

of the Charter,Which stated that in the event of a conflict betweenthe obligations of a Member of the United Nationsunder the Charter and their obligations under anyother international agreement, their obligations underthe Charter should prevail. Such instruments as theCharter of the Organization °fAmericanStates, signedat Bogota in 1948, the Declaration of the Asian-African Conference held at Baiÿdung in 1955, theDeclarations of the Conferences of Heads of State orGovernment of Non-Aligned Countries held at Belgradein 1961 and Cairo in 1964, and the Charter of theOrganization of African Unity, which all representedworld opinion, emphatically Condemned interventionin all its forms. Those declarations, which reflectedthe spirit of modern times, were significant factors.in the development of international relations.

31. When intervention was accompanied by the useof force, it constituted a still graver violation ofthe United Nations Charter by contravening para-graph 4 of Article 2, which prohibited the threat oruse of" force against the territorial integrity orpolitical independence of any State. That Article hadmarked a new era by setting aside the very conceptof the use of force in relations between States. Itwas a peremptory norm of international law, and anytreaty balculated to defeat it by providing for militaryor other forcible intervention by one State againstanother could not therefore be valid or have effect.That rule of law had been reaffirmed by the Inter-national Law Commission when it had unanimouslyadopted article 37 of the draft law of treaties, 4/whichin fact stated that any treaty conflictingwith a peremp_tory norm of international law was Void. If such a treatywere to be considered as valid, thereby sanctioningwar, the very concept of the United Nations Wouldlose all meaning and the Organization Would have no

purpose.

32. The danger of treaties which authorized interven_tion by force was that one of the parties, relying onthe rule ÿ as covering all treatiesregardless of their validity or legality, might be en-eouraged to commit acts of intervention by force,thereby creating situations threatening peace. TheInternational Law Commission had qualified that ruleby providing, in article 55 of the draft law of treaties s_/that in order to be binding a treaty must be "in

enr.h Session, Supplement No 95.ÿ ibÿÿnÿ ÿo. 9, chap. II............... ÿesslon, Supplement ......... No. 9ÿÿÿ°n' SuDDÿ ÿ.

310 General Assembly -- Twentieth Session -- First Committee

force", i.e., it must be legally valid and enforceable.In other words, any treaty which did not comply withthat requirement was not binding. The Cÿ;priot dele-gation believed that the invalidity of treaties whichviolated the Charter must be clarified and stressedin order to avoid situations of conflict and unrestwhich arose from such treaties.

33. Bearing in mind the threat to international peaceposed by treaties of intervention, itwouldbe desirableto condemn such treaties in the draft resolutionwhichthe Committee would ultimately sÿnd to the GeneralAssembly by adding the followingprovision: "Treatiespurporting to authorize intervention by States in thedomestic jurisdiction of other States in violation ofthe Charter are condemned as asource of internationalfriction and a threat to peace."

34. Numerous examples of the various forms whichintervention could take had been given during thedebate. He recalled that at the beginning of the ses-sion, when the Committee was discussingthe organiza-tion of its work, he had stressed that the question ofCyprus, which the Committee was to examine next,was closely linked to the principle of non-intervention.Cyprus was a living example par excellence of allforms of intervention, whether by colonialism, a shamgranting of independence, armed aggression, subver-sion, the imposition Of a constitutional rggime againstthe will of the people, unjust and illegal treaties orthe domination of an ethnic minority. He was confidentthat in due course the tragedy of Cyprus would befully revealed.

35. Mr. VAKIL (Iran) said that the reaffirmation ofthe principle of non-intervention in the domesticaffairs of States and its effective application wereimportant for all States, but more particularly forthose which, like Iran, had repeatedly suffered fromforeign intervention and which awaited the outcomeof the current debate with great expectation. Since ithad appeared on the world political stage in thenineteenth century, Iran had been the scene of great-Power rivalry. Althoÿugh it had persistently followeda policy of neutrality for more than half a century,Iran had been invaded by troops of both the Alliedand the Central Powers during the First World War.But it had not been allowed to speak at the ParisPeace Conference in order to obtain redress. Iran'sneutrality had again been violated by the allied inter-vention in August 1941.

Charter also prohibited intervention in the domesticaffairs of any State, a principle later incorporated inthe Bandung Declaration of 1955.

37. It was interesting to note that in practice theUnited Nations had also concerned itself with "indirectintervention,,. In November 1947, the GeneralAssembly had adopted resolution 110 (II) condemningall forms of propaganda; subsequently, in resolution290 (IV), adopted in December 1949, it had called up°nall States to refrain from direct or indirect threatsaimed at impairing the independence of any State; andin its resolution 380 (V), adopted inNovember 1950, ithad condemned intervention by a State in the internalaffairs of another State for the purpose of changing itslegally established Government. The United Nationshad als0 dealt with the principle of non-interventionin the course of its study of the question of definingaggression, in drawing up a declaration on the rightsand duties of States, and in its draft code of crimesagainst humanity. The Sixth Committee was also en-gaged in considering that principle with a view to itsultimate codification. Although those studies had notyet brought about the expected results, there wasgeneral agreement on the part of the Members of theUnited Nations to treat that principle 'as a positiverule of international law. At the regional level, itwas gratifying that that principle had been incorporatedin the charters of the Organization of AmericanStates, the Organization of African Unity and theLeague of Arab States. It was also included in declara-tions and resolutions handed down by several inter-national conferences. Regional organizations couldplay an important role, for itwas mainly on a regionaland bilateral basis that that principle could usefullybe applied.

36. At the time of the convocationoftheSan FranciscoConference, Iran had still be under foreign occupation.It was therefore natural that his delegation had asso-ciated itself with certain small States which had soughtto incorporate in the Charter a solemn commitment onthe part of States to respect the independence andsovereignty of other States; the Dumbarton Oaksproposal, for its part, had made no reference to sucha principle as respect for the territorial integrityand political independence of Member States, which,according to the sponsoring Government, was implicitin the fact that the Organization was based on theprinciple of the sovereign equality of all its Members.All that those delegations had been able to achievewas the condemnation, in Article 2, paragraph 4, ofthe Charter, of the use or threat of force and. con-

38. Unfortunately, the principle was still not beingobserved in present-day international politics. Butrespect for the principle of non-intervention was ofthe highest importance for the United Nations, sincewithout it the Organization would not be able toachieve its primary objective of maintaining inter-national peace and security and safeguarding theequal rights of States. The United Nations shouldtherefore constantly be mindful of the necessity ofreaffirming old rules and formulating precise new iprinciples, in order to keep coexistence peaceful.In that context, his delegation welcomed the Soviet !Union's initiative in requesting the inclusion in theagenda for the twentieth session of the question ofthe inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic Iaffairs of States, thus providing Member States withanother opportunity to reaffirm in a solemn declara- [tion the prohibition of direct or indirect intervention (by States in the domestic and external affairs ofother States. By reaffirming in clear and stronglanguage its support for the principle of non-inter-vention, the General Assembly would undoubtedly lcontribute to the consolidation of peace and friendly ÿrelations between States. It was high time for States tto understand that intervention was no longer profit- iÿable, for the small countries were becoming in- tcreasingly jealous of their independence.

!t39. There were no grounds for deferring the drafting

...... ÿ ÿ ..... vÿuuÿy respected the in-

dependence and sovereignty of other States, and had", nothing to lose from the results of the discussion.

AS the representative of the USSR had quite rightlyi said, the implementation of the principle of non-1, intervention would, first of all, serve the vitalt( interests of small countries, which were often unableq to protect their rights or defend their independence

by ÿheir own unaided efforts.

i 40. Mr. MOD (Hungary) thought that the GeneralAssembly would be failing in its duty if it closed itseyes to violations of the fundamental laws governingthe coexistence of States. It should therefore havethe moral courage to deal with the problems raised' by the realities of international life.

41. The main obstacles to international peace andsecurity were intervention and POlicies of force.Interventionist policies had for centuries been anatural concomitant of the development of capitalism,and had been based on the idea that the international

law of the "civilized nations,, did not apply to theso-called "uncivilized,, peoples.

42. But the triumph of socialism and the disintegra_tion of the colonial system had changed the situation.Overt intervention had become more difficult, for theprinciple of non-intervention had gained ground andhad been confirmed in the United Nations Charter.But it had not ceased; it was in fact becoming morefrequent, thus raising an increasing threat to world

peace. How could the continuance of interventionistpolicies be explained?

43. Interventionism implied that a State had theright--for political, economic or ideological a:easons--to change the course of events in another State to itsown advantage or to maintain a status quo in anotherState which was in its own interests. That approachto internatiolnal politics, as applied by the main im-

perialist Powers, led to the threat and use of force.It was encouraging the United States to embark onincreasingly dangerous adventures, under the sloganof anti-communism and the "defence of the freeWorld,,. Walter Lippmarm had described the policyas "giobalism',--in other Words, global ideologicalstruggle against revolutionary communism. But the

present policy of the United States showed that suchreferences to communism were nothing more than acloak to conceal the defence of political or economicinterests; and that was in fact clearly proved bythe series of acts of aggression against .countriesin the Near East, Africa, Asia and Latin Americawhich had been committed with the assistance ofthe numerous allies of the United States in aggressivemilitary blocs such as the North Atlantic TreatyOrganization.44. The Hungarian Government was following eventsin South-East Asia with particular concern, andcondemne.d the intensification of aggressioh againstViet-Nam. An extensive and carefully co-ordinatedPress campaign had been launched to prepare theUnited States people for aÿ extension of that aggres-sion. In that dangerous situation, the only course forthose countries which were seeking peace and justiceto follow was to give the people of Viet-Narn every

possible assistance and at the same time to redouble

45. Non-intervention was one of the fundamental

principles of international law. It had been embodiedin the United Nations Charter and in several impor-tant international instruments. It was essential toemphasize that fact, since certain countries oftenargued that the principle was vague and ill-definedand could not therefore be applied to specific cases.The Romanian and Indian representatives had abun-

dantly refuted that argument at the last meeting, andhe would merely refer to article 5 of the Pact ofNon-Aggression between France and the USSR, signedon 29 November 1932,6_/which defined the principleof non-intervention very precisely. He also recalled

that the Inter-American Juridical Committee hadprepared in 1959 a draft instrument relating to viola-tions of the principles of non-intervention. While theLatin American members of that Committee had unaniÿmously approved the draft, the United States repre-sentative had refused to concede that the principlein question could be defined, and had denied thatsome of the cases listed by the Committee con-stituted acts of intervention. By a very inter-esting coincidence, the cases which the United

States had refused to recognize had been those whosedefinition also applied to the acts of intervention whichthe United States had since committed in Cuba andthe Dominican Republic. In Cuba, the United Stateshad made every effort to overthrow a revolutionarygovernment; and in the Dominican Republic it wastrying to impose a particular government.

46. One question which could not be evaded was thatof national liberation movements, particularly asreferences to such movements seemed to appear insome of the draft texts and amendments submitted.In his delegation, s view, subversion was to be foundnot in support for national liberation movements butin political, economic or other types of intervention_in other words, in the export of counter-revolution.

47. Excuses had always been sought for repressingrevolutionary movements and opposing the march ofprogress. The Spanish monarchy had invoked legalarguments to justify its attempts to stifle the strugglefor national freedom in the Netherlands, and thePortuguese colonialists were now doing the same intheir colonies. The coalitions formed against theFrench Revolution had demanded the re-establishmentof the old rÿgime. The fourteen Powers which hadintervened against the young Soviet State, and theEntente Powers which had intervened against theyoung Hungarian Republic in 1919, had also desiredthe restoration of the status quo. The United States,which in its Declaratioÿndence had claimedthe right to free itself from colonial rule, Was nowrefusing the same right to the peoples of Viet-Nam,the Dominican Republic and other countries. AsSenator Fulbright had declared on 15 September 1965,the United States was not the most revolutionarycountry in the world; rather, it was about to becomethe least revolutionary country in the world. Unfor-tunately, the United States had not learned anylessons from that fact. It still cherished the illusio'that social and nationalist movements developing:

6.ÿ League of Na[ions, ÿ, vol. CLVII (1935), No. 361/

312 General Assembly -- Twentieth Session -- First Committee

accordance with the irrevocable laws of historycould be halted by force.

48. In those circumstances, the need for a declara-tion on the principle of non-intervention was obvious.From a lega! and a political standpoint alike, thevalidity and present relevance of the principle couldnot be questioned; and the General Assembly wouldbe failing in its duty if it did not draft a declarationon the subject which could become an importantsource of international law.

intervention into the Pact of the League of ArabStates and had subscribed to the declarations adoptedat the Bandung Conference and the conferences ofnon-aligned countries.

49. The Soviet delegation, as so often in the past,had submitted a proposal designed to solve one ofthe most important issues of international life. Thedraft declaration which it had presented was drawnup in unequivocal terms. The Hungarian delegationsupported it and urged its adoption without amend-ment. Of the texts submitted by other delegations, hethought that the draft resolution submitted by theUnited Arab Republic and several other delegations(A/C.1/L.353/Rev.2) deserved the Committee's spe-cial consideration.

Mr. Csatorday (Hungary) resumed the Chair.

50. Mr. PACHACHI (iraq) said he wished, like-allthe preceding speakers, to stress the importance ofthe principle of non-intervention as one of the cardinalprinciples which had governed relations betweenStates ever since organized international societyhad laid down rules of civilized conduct. Yet viola-tions of that vital principle were still continuing;and it could be said without exaggeration that non-observance of the principle was one of the maincauses of friction in the world andthemost dangerousthreat to peace. Although the Charter prohibitedintervention in the domestic affairs of States and al-though States Mernhersÿwere bound by the obligationsthey had assumed under the Charter, the number ofacts of intervention committed in almost every partof the world now made it necessary for the UnitedNations to reaffirm the principle of non-intervention.

51. Unlike those who had argued that political issuesand old disputes should be left out of the discussion,he thought that the Committee might run the risk ofindulging in abstract discussions unless the debatewas related to specific problems. The principle ofnon-intervention was based primarily on the conceptof the equality of peoples, irrespective of their race,nationality or stage of development. Yet interventionwas often justified on the grounds that some peopleswere not yet entitled to be equal or were not capableof deciding their destiny; but such theories were thevery basis of racial discrimination, apartheid, colo-nialism and the denial of the right to self-determina-tion. The Arab nation, of which his country was anintegral part, had suffered greatly from interventionof that kind. Several parts of its homeland had notyet been liberated; and even the Arab peoples whichhad gained independence were still on occasion thevictims of economic or political pressure or evensubversive activities by the great Powers, whichencouraged secessionist movements and agitation inorder to maintain their hegemony in the region. That

52. One of the worst forms of intervention wasundoubtedly armed intervention, particularly when itwas undertaken against a weak and defencelesspeople; and it should therefore be condemned inclear and unequivocal terms by the internationalcommunity. But there was another form of interven-tion which was even more sinister--namely, the liqui-dation of an entire people in its own homeland and theattempt to obliterate its national identity. To describethat kind of injustice as a territorial dispute was atravesty of the facts and a cynical denial of theinalienable right of all peoples to self-determination.

53. His de!egation supported, in general, the USSRdraft resolution (A/C.1/L.343/Rev.1), as well asmany parts of the draft resolution submitted byeighteen Latin American countries (A/C.1/L.349/Rev.1 and Add.l). But it felt that neither of thosetexts was as comprehensive as draft resolutionA/C.1/L.353/Rev.2, of which Iraq was a sponsor,and which contained all the essential elements of thetwo other texts, supplemented by some additionalconcepts and principles which needed reaffirmation.Any declaration on non-intervention should containreferences to the following basic principles: first,equality of rights among all peoples; second, strictobservance of the principle of selfLdetermination;third, the complete eradication of the colonial systemand racial discrimination; fourth, respect for the inde-pendence, sovereignty and territorial integrity ofStates; fifth, condemnation of all forms of interven-tion, particularly armed intervention and interventionwhich deprived a people of its homeland; and sixth,the right of every people to determine the political,economic and social system under which it wishedto live.

54. The United Nations had already adopted declara-tions emplifying and reaffirming certain basic prin-ciples of the Charter, such as the Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights and the Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples; he hoped that the First Committee wouldreach agreement during the present session on adraft declaration on the principle of non-intervention.

55. Mr. COULIBALY (Mali) said he hoped that theCommittee's debate would prompt the Powers whichwere apt to intervene in the internal affairs of otherStates to examine their consciences. The principlesof non-intervention in the domestic affairs of otherStates and respect for the sovereignty of all Stateshad already been written into the United NationsCharter and the statutes of regional organizationssuch as the Organization of American States, theOrganization of African Unity and the League ofArab States, and they were established rules ofpublic international law. Regrettably, however, therehad been a recrudescence--at a time when the begin-nings of a relaxation of tension between East andWest had aroused aTeat hone arnnnÿ ÿ11 nÿ,ÿ-lÿrÿn,ÿ

i

)

I

1

Aligned Countries, held at Cairo in October 1964, thePresSdent of the Republic of Mall had deplored thatsituation, which had since then deteriorated stillfurther. The Committee,s debate would be usefulonly to the extent that it adequately stressed the seriousconsequences of foreign intervention in the internalaffairs of other countries. Such intervention must beemphatically condemned, so that those guilty of itor those who supported it might have no doubts as

• to the general censure of their criminal acts.

56. The Government of the Republic of Mall, whichconsistently followed a policy of non-alignrnent, peace-ful coexistence and respect for the sovereignty ofother States, had always categorically condemned actsof intervention in the internal affairs of other coun-trieS. The trouble-spot which was at present causingthe greatest concern to the international communitywas Viet-Nam. But it was not enough to indulge insentiment over the sufferings of a courageous peoplewhich had been waging a fierce struggle against thecolonialist and imperialist forces for more thantwenty years. The situation in Viet-Nam had beenaggravated by the culpable silence of most of theStates Members of the United Nations. The case ofViet-Nam was at present the most blatant one, butforeign intervention in the internal affairs of smallcountries and newly independent States manifesteditself in many other forms. The weapons of im-perialism were varied; they ranged from armedintervention through economic blackmail and othermethods of pressure to subversion. The groundsalleged for intervention were equally varied; butthe objective of all of them was to prevent a country

from choosing the institutions which best suited it.57. The Government of the Republic of Mall con-sidered that it was the duty of every State to con-tribute to the maintenance of international peace andsecurity, and with that end in view to observe the

principles of the Charter, in particular the principleof respect for the sovereignty of other States, and

practise a policy of peaceful coexistence. Everypeople had its own peculiar form of civilization, inthe context of which it shaped its national existence;that should be remembered in relations betweenStates. The Republic of Mali was resolved to main-tain friendly relations with all countries which, re-spected its sovereignty. Profoundly dedicated asthey were to African traditions, the people of Mallwere convinced that all differences between Statesmust and could be settled through negotiations andin the spirit of mutual respect for the sovereignty

of the States concerned.

58. Turning to the various draft resolutions beforethe Committee, he said that a declaration could be

313

effective only to the extend that the Governmentswhich drafted or accepted it were prepared to carryit out. The Charter of the United Nations, the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on

the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countriesand Peoples contained all the elements of law neces-sary for the maintenance of peace and good relationsbetween States. The Committee was now engaged in

the preparation of another declayation which 'wouldmerely repeat in different forÿ provisions andprinciples which had already been affirmed in thepreceding declarations. The substantive problemwould not be solved by the adoption of one moredeclaration; what was necessary was the creation

of an international climate of opinion hostile to warand to all practices which led to war. In everycountry, Governments, universities, the Press, the

radio and all information and education media shouldcondenan war and all forms of imperialism andviolations of State sovereignty. In addition, therewas need for greater will to respect international

discipline and ethics./

59. Nevertheless, the delegation of Mall was pre-pared to co-operate with other delegations in draftinga declaration acceptable to the majority. He drewthe Committee,s attention to the iÿroposals made bythe Afghan and Tunisian delegations, the purpose of

which had been to facilitate the Committee's work.His delegation did not wish to add to the plethoraof draft resolutions and amendments already beforethe Committee, but reserved its position on thevarious texts. It felt that in view of the importanceof the subject under discussion the Committee neededtime to study the various drafts, so that the declara-tion ultimately adopted might carry the weight andauthority which it needed for success.

60. Mr. VERGIN (Turkey), speaking in exerciseof the right of reply, said that the representative ofCyprus, in his desire to use every item of the agendain support of his case, had tried once again to estab-lish a connexion between the question of Cyprus andthe item before the Committee. Unfortunately, the

question of Cyprus, as the Committee would realizewhen it came to consider the matter in all its de-tails, was not as simple as the representative ofCyprus would have it believe. For the moment he

preferred to make no statement Which would divertthe Committee,s attention from the essence of thecurrent debate, which, it was to be hoped, wouldculminate in the adoption, unanimously or by a largemajority, of a declaration on non-intervention.

J

The meeting rose at 6.45 p.m.

i !,,i':' !i

i].j!I.

J!

ii ÿ i

Lithe in U.N,

77101ÿSepternber 1966ÿ2,050