Krishna Menon - Decolonisation Peace and the Unit

KRISHNA MENON

SELECTED SPEECHES BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS -IV

DECOLONISATION, PEACE AND THEUNITED NATIONS

Edited byE. S. REDDY

A. K. DAMODARAN

Issued under the auspices ofKRISHNA MENON NATIONAL MEMORIAL COMMITTEE

In association withSANCHAR PUBLISHING HOUSE

NEW DELHI1997

INTRODUCTION

Krishna Menon’s association with the United Nations as India’s majorrepresentative was continuous for about ten years, from 1952 to 1962. Earlier hewas High Commissioner in London and after 1962 his official association withthe Government ended. Very much earlier, at the first session of the GeneralAssembly in 1946, he took some part. The core of his achievement was, however,during the 1950s, when he was the best known spokesman not only of India butalso the newly independent countries and of the few Afro-Asian countries whowere members of the World Organisation.

This fourth and final volume of Krishna Menon’s speeches in the GeneralAssembly and the Security Council consists mostly of India’s reactions to majorworld developments in a decade of significant transformation in the globalcommunity both at the macro and the micro levels. The earlier volumes, it will berecalled, dealt with (1) India’s official foreign policy statements in the UnitedNations at the beginning of each session; (2) India’s arguments on the Kashmirquestion; and (3) India’s views on disarmament. This volume deals with a varietyof subjects primarily connected with the post-colonial phase. It is not an entirelyrepresentative collection because there were many subjects on which importantspeeches were made by other members of the delegation. Of Krishna Menon’sown speeches, only a small selection was possible. But they do provide thesubstance and flavour of that first famous period of the United Nations when halfof the world became free and in Africa there were some agonising momentsbefore the moment of fulfilment. Not all these features are, however, purelyreactive in content. On some important world issues India took major initiativesand contributed a little towards the resolution of very difficult problems in thatfirst frigid period of the ideological confrontation. It would be useful in thesepreliminary remarks to make a quick survey of these major issues on whichKrishna Menon spoke.

The Indian contribution towards the tragic process of the colonial war in Algeriawas primarily one of moderation and persuasion. Krishna Menon’s speeches showunderstanding of the French problem and try to take full advantage of the changein situation since De Gaulle came to power in 1958. There was, of course, neverany question regarding the ultimate aim or about the total sovereignty of theAlgerian people. The favourite argument of France and Portugal againstdecolonisation was based upon the notion that these overseas colonies were partsof the metropolitan country and any change in their status would be aninterference in the domestic jurisdiction. This was also the position of Portugalabout its colonies. Krishna Menon never accepts this argument. He notices thatthe De Gaulle Constitution made an important change from the earlier model. Itwas a constitution not of the French people but of people in general. This was thebasis of Menon’s argument on behalf of the Algerians: “In all coloniessovereignty remains vested in the people.” In an ironical reference to the imperialposition he says that “the worst freedom would be freedom from facts.” This

speech was made in 1958 and freedom finally came to the North African nation in1961. For about ten years India had a patient dialogue with France on manysubjects, agreeing to disagree on disarmament and decolonisation.

The discussion on Cyprus mainly centred on the colonial power, Britain, and thetwo neighbouring States, Greece and Turkey, engaging themselves in a diplomaticdialogue in which the people of Cyprus were absent. Krishna Menon givesprimary importance to the Cypriot people and their national identity. Partition wasout of the question. Unfortunately, however, long after these discussions tookplace and Cyprus became independent, there was again division in the island dueto the unresolved nature of the ethnic problem. Cyprus remains a supremeexample of both the success and the failure of the United Nations. Since 1974,physical conflicts have been reduced to the minimum but the de facto partitionremains. One of the most interesting aspects of these speeches is the manner inwhich many fond hopes were later realised but sometimes frustrated during thecoming three decades.

An aspect of Menon’s speeches on colonialism is the inevitable context in whichhe goes back to the Indian experience. In making a general exposition on thedeclaration on the granting of independence to colonial peoples he makes apowerful statement about nationalism being the cause, the soul of empire and,also, the mainspring of the resistance to it. The specific characteristics of theIndian national movement are always brought to the attention of the worldaudience in their relevance to contemporary issues. He makes importantformulations on non-violence as the only possible method of social and politicalmobilisation for colonial people. He is severely critical of terrorism and violencein the Indian national movement. “There is no shortcut”, he says, “to freedom.”One of the more attractive facets of Krishna Menon’s specific brand ofprogressive nationalism is the manner in which he was influenced by Gandhi.This quality he shares with Nehru. This is, however, not so well known.

Other colonial problems discussed in these speeches are the future of South WestAfrica and the resolution of the problem about West Irian. The discussions onNamibia are of primary interest today as examples of Menon's careful preparationof his brief on difficult subjects. The problem created by the changeover from theLeague of Nations to the United Nations in the Mandated Territories is discussedwith scrupulous care with regard to international law. It also provides examples ofMenon, the diplomat, being generous in his compliments to General Smuts, theSouth African statesman. There is very little personal rancour here in spite of thewide political differences. “South Africans and we are probably the most patientpeople in the world in regard to negotiations,” he says in an obvious reference toGandhi’s prolonged interaction with the South African Government and withMarshal Smuts personally.

The importance of the small States in the future world set-up is something whichoccupies Menon’s attention all the time. No area is too small to be a State,

according to Menon. Iceland is already there and there will be many like it. At thesame time he is extremely clear about the limitations of self-determination in apart of a larger State. “There cannot be self-determination with regard to territorythat is already sovereign. If that were so, many countries - and I shall not mentionthem - around this table would suffer disintegration today.” These are basicformulations in which India’s own vital national interest is never far fromMenon’s mind.

The speeches on the Chinese representation in the United Nations are importantformulations of the well-known Nehru policy. Throughout the 1950s India wasconsistently arguing for the Chinese presence in the United Nations. Towards theend of the 1950s came the problems about Tibet and the border. Menon does notgloss over these realities but refuses to be persuaded to give up the earlier policyof supporting Chinese membership of the U.N.

Three major world problems are also discussed in these speeches - the Congo,Suez, and Hungary. Both on the Congo question and on Suez, India had a greatdeal to contribute and Menon’s speeches indicate this. The Suez interventions areof particular interest because they synchronise with Menon’s successfuldiplomacy outside the United Nations in London and elsewhere. Looking backwith the advantage of new perceptions after almost forty years, the interestingthing is the moderation with which Menon put forward the anti-colonial positionwithout leaving behind any permanent hostility. Both Britain and France werecriticised but in a gentle tone. The Hungary episode produced some well-knownembarrassments. There is, however, no attempt to fudge the issue. Menon makesit clear that the very first resolution criticising the Soviet military action containedsome objectionable formulations which made it impossible for India to vote forthe resolution. Abstention was the only possible option. However, in all thespeeches there is no self-censorship in criticising the military occupation of asovereign member of the United Nations by other member States. Menon quotesNehru again on this subject: “We are not neutral where human freedom isconcerned.” Another important aspect of India’s diplomatic initiatives on thisproblem has to be noted. It is always a multi-nation initiative along with Burma,Indonesia and Ceylon. It was group diplomacy at its most effective. Nothing verymuch was achieved. It was a major world issue in which a new middle power hadvery little of substance to contribute, but on basic issues of sovereignty andfreedom, the Indian position was articulated again and again with no specialconcern for the sensitivities in Moscow. “The position that a great uprising of apeople, whether bad or good elements enter into it, whether it takes some uglyturn or not, can ever be suppressed by force of arms, that, in our view, isfallacious. What is more, our people have been very much moved lately by thekind of resistance without arms that is arising in Hungary, because it strikes achord of remembrance in our own hearts when a great and powerful Empirerefused to listen to the voice of reason, because our people said: ‘No.’”

India’s participation in the Korean episode is well known. The speeches in thisvolume deal only with the later developments, particularly the problemsconcerning the repatriation of prisoners. India’s attitude towards China is broughtout in all its understanding and friendliness on many occasions. India was anatural mediator in Asian problems like Indo-China and Korea. In a significantphrase reminding us of Nehru’s speech in the Asian Relations Conference in1947, Menon sees India as situated “between two continents.”

There are some interesting nuances in the 1957 speech on the peacefulcoexistence of States. The formulation of the Panch Sheel principle is seen as aparallel development. Menon is quite detached about the question whether theIndia-China formulation was original or creative. It was just an inevitabledevelopment in the post-colonial situation which traced its roots to the colonialperiod. In fact, Menon traces the various formulations on non-interference andequality in relations between nations to the United States’ pronouncement on 26November 1941, just two weeks before Pearl Harbor. The only addition becauseof the cold war on external interventions in the domestic affairs of States is theinclusion of the ideological concept in addition to the familiar economic andpolitical areas. Menon points out that this was the formulation first made in thestatement after Jawaharlal Nehru’s visit to Moscow in 1955.

Towards the end of Menon’s association with the United Nations, the India-Chinaborder problem came to the fore. There are some important speeches in thisvolume on the Tibetan question after Dalai Lama’s arrival in India in 1959. Hegoes into the history of the Sino-Tibetan relationship and makes carefuldistinctions between the ideas of “effective” suzerainty and “conditional”suzerainty. He makes it clear to the world audience that in spite of the Tibetanirritation and the violation of India’s borders by China, there would be nodifference to the position which obtained under the 1954 Agreement on Tibet.There is always the sad wistful hope that the Dalai Lama would be finallyable to return to the country.

There is one other facet of the speeches which Menon made towards the very endof his association with the U.N. in the early 1960s. As Minister of Defence he wasassociated very much in the Goa developments. In fact, there are two speecheshere made only a few weeks before the liberation of Goa which carefullyarticulate India’s position. Menon makes it abundantly clear that India had notgiven up the use of force as far as the problem of colonialism was concerned. On13 November 1961 he talks generally about the use of force in internationalrelations when necessary alluding to Kashmir, the China frontier problem and toGoa. One week later in the general statement on the independence of colonialcountries, Menon specifically mentions Goa and Portugal again and clearlyrefuses to abjure the use of force.

There are several other important speeches in this compilation which bring outIndia’s policy on several matters like the membership of the United Nations, the

problems faced by American officials in the U.N. Secretariat in the period ofMcCarthyism and the economic development of underdeveloped countries. Weget here the earliest foreshadowings of the North-South divide. The peaceful usesof atomic energy are discussed along with the establishment of the IAEA and thecrucial role played by India as a country and Dr. Bhabha personally in that majorepisode in the mid-1950s. Connected with these subjects is the problem of thedangers of radiation as a consequence of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Thisis different from the other major question of the consequences of atmosphericnuclear tests discussed in the volume on Disarmament.

It was, on the whole, a long and fruitful association. The participation by Menonin almost all the important debates in the U.N. for ten years is significant. It is amatter of interesting historical detail that the earliest speech, perhaps, made byMenon in the U.N. was on the status of post-war Spain in the world body on 12December 1946. It is a good speech full of nostalgic pride about his and his peergroup’s excitement about the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s. On 21September 1962, after sixteen years, he made a brief intervention - also includedin this volume - welcoming the successful resolution of the dispute between theNetherlands and Indonesia on the West Irian problem.

This fourth volume in the project initiated by Mr. E.S. Reddy and carried out bythe Krishna Menon Memorial Society, completes the present series. Outside thisenterprise, also initiated by Mr. Reddy, is the volume of the Indian diplomat’sspeeches in the U.N. on South Africa. Perhaps, there are one or two more volumesto be prepared in the future consisting of Menon’s interventions in the IndianParliament. It is on the whole a remarkable corpus which perpetuates the memoryof two men and a nation in an important transitional epoch in post-war history.

A.K. DamodaranNew Delhi1 August 1996

CONTENTS1

PART I

COLONIALISM

[Note: Statements marked with an asterisk are summaries of statements from theUnited Nations official records.]

ALGERIA

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, December 4, 1957

Statement in the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly, December13, 1958

CYPRUS

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, September 24, 1954

*Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, February 22, 1957

Second statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, February 22,1957


Statement in the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly, December2, 1958

DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TOCOLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, December 13, 1960

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, November 20, 1961

PORTUGUESE COLONIES

Statement in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, November 13, 1961

1 The statements marked with an asterisk are summaries in official records of the United Nations.

SOUTH WEST AFRICA (NAMIBIA)

*Statement in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, November 12,1953

*Statement in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, December 19,1956

Statement in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, October 13, 1958

Statement in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, October 23, 1959

TOGOLAND UNDER BRITISH ADMINISTRATION


WEST IRIAN

*Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, November 29, 1954

*Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, February 27, 1957

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, November 26, 1957



PART II

POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS2

REPRESENTATION OF CHINA IN THE UNITED NATIONS




2 The statements of Mr. Menon on people of Indian origin in South Africa, and apartheid in SouthAfrica, are published in a separate volume.


Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, October 3, 1960

THE SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO



Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, April 5, 1961

AGGRESSION AGAINST EGYPT BY FRANCE, THE UNITEDKINGDOM AND ISRAEL IN 1956




Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, February 2, 1957

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, March 1, 1957

THE QUESTION OF HUNGARY




KOREA


*Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, December 1, 1952

Statement in the Plenary meeting of the General Assembly, December 21, 1952

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, August 28, 1953

*Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, December 7, 1954


*Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, January 7, 1957

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, November 15, 1957

PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE OF STATES


FRANCO SPAIN


TIBET


PART III

OTHER MATTERS

ATOMIC ENERGY

(A) INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION IN DEVELOPING THEPEACEFUL USES OF ATOMIC ENERGY


*Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, October 25, 1955

(B) EFFECTS OF ATOMIC RADIATION

*Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, October 31, 1955

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

*Statement in the Second Committee of the General Assembly, November 6,1959

UNITED NATIONS

(A) AMENDMENT OF CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS:

EXPANSION OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL


(B) PERSONNEL POLICY OF THE UNITED NATIONS


(C) TRIBUTE TO DAG HAMMARSKJOLD


(D) WELCOME TO NEW MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS

1. Malaya


2. Guinea


3. Thirteen African States and Cyprus


4. Senegal and Mali


5. Nigeria


INTRODUCTION

Krishna Menon’s association with the United Nations as India’s majorrepresentative was continuous for about ten years, from 1952 to 1962. Earlier hewas High Commissioner in London and after 1962 his official association withthe Government ended. Very much earlier, during the San Francisco Conferenceof the United Nations, he took some part. The, core of his achievement was,however, during the 1950s, when he was the best known spokesman not only ofIndia but also the newly independent countries and of the few Afro-Asiancountries who were members of the World Organisation.

This fourth and final volume of Krishna Menon’s speeches in the GeneralAssembly or in the Security Council consists mostly of India’s reactions to majorworld developments in a decade of significant transformation in the globalcommunity both at the macro and the micro levels. The earlier volumes, it will berecalled, dealt with (1) India’s official foreign policy statements in the UnitedNations at the beginning of each session; (2) India’s arguments on the Kashmirquestion; and (3) India’s views on disarmament. This volume deals with a varietyof subjects primarily connected with the post-colonial phase. It is not an entirelyrepresentative collection because there were many subjects on which importantspeeches were made by other members of the delegation. Of Krishna Menon’sown speeches, only a small selection was possible. But they do provide thesubstance and flavour of that first famous period of the United Nations when halfof the world became free in Africa and there were some agonising momentsbefore the moment of fulfilment. Not all these features are, however, purelyreactive in content. On some important world issues India took major initiativesand contributed a little towards the resolution of very difficult problems in thatfirst frigid period of the ideological confrontation. It would be useful in thesepreliminary remarks to make a quick survey of these major issues on whichKrishna Menon spoke.

The Indian contribution towards the tragic process of the colonial war in Algeriawas primarily one of moderation and persuasion. Krishna Menon’s speeches showunderstanding of the French problem and try to take full advantage of the changein situation since De Gaulle came to power in 1958. There was, of course, neverany question regarding the ultimate aim or about the total sovereignty of theAlgerian people. The favourite argument of France and Portugal againstdecolonisation was based upon the notion that these overseas colonies were partsof the metropolitan country and any change in their status would be aninterference in the domestic jurisdiction. This was also the position of Portugalabout its colonies. Krishna Menon never accepts this argument. He notices thatthe De Gaulle Constitution made an important change from the earlier model Itwas a constitution not of the French people but of people in general. This was thebasis of Menon’s argument on behalf of the Algerians: “In all coloniessovereignty remains vested in the people”. In an ironical reference to the imperialposition he says that “the worst freedom would be freedom from facts”. This

speech was made in 1958 and freedom finally came to the North African nation in1961. For about ten years India had a patient dialogue with France on manysubjects, agreeing to disagree on disarmament and decolonisation.

The discussion on Cyprus mainly centred on the colonial power, Britain, and thetwo neighbouring States, Greece and Turkey, engaging themselves in a diplomaticdialogue in which the people of Cyprus were absent. Krishna Menon givesprimary importance to the Cypriot people and their national identity. Partition wasout of the question. Unfortunately, however, long after these discussions tookplace and Cyprus became independent, there was again division in the Island dueto the unresolved nature of the ethnic problem Cyprus remains a supreme exampleof both the success and the failure of the United Nations. Since 1974, physicalconflicts have been reduced to the minimum but the de facto partition remains.One of the most interesting aspects of these speeches is the manner in whichmany fond hopes were later realised but sometimes frustrated during the comingthree decades.

An aspect of Menon’s speeches on colonialism is the inevitable context in whichhe goes back to the Indian experience. In making a general exposition on thedeclaration of the granting of independence to colonial peoples he makes apowerful statement about nationalism being the cause, the soul of empire and,also, the mainspring of the resistance to it. The specific characteristics of theIndian national movement are always brought to the attention of the worldaudience in their relevance to contemporary issues. He makes importantformulations on non-violence as the only possible method of social and politicalmobilisation for colonial people. He is severely critical of terrorism and violencein the Indian national movement. “There is no shortcut”, he says, “to freedom”.One of the more attractive facets of Krishna Menon’s specific brand ofprogressive nationalism is the manner in which he was influenced by Gandhi.This quality he shares with Nehru. This is, however, not so well known.

Other colonial problems discussed in these speeches are the future of South WestAfrica and the resolution of the problem about West Irian. The discussions onNamibia are of primary interest today as examples of Menon's careful preparationof his brief on difficult subjects. The problem created by the changeover from theLeague of Nations to the United Nations in the Mandated Territories is discussedwith scrupulous care with regard to international law. It also provides examples ofMenon, the diplomat, being generous in his compliments to General Smuts, theSouth African statesman. There is very little personal rancour here in spite of thewide political differences. “South Africans and we are probably the most patientpeople in the world in regard to negotiations,” he says in an obvious reference toGandhi’s prolonged interaction with the South African Government and withMarshal Smuts personally.

The importance of the small State in the future world set-up is something whichoccupies Menon’s attention all the time. No area is too small to be a State,

according to Menon. Iceland is already there and there will be many like it. At thesame time he is extremely clear about the limitations of self-determination in apart of a larger State. “There cannot be self-determination with regard to territorythat is already sovereign. If that were so, many countries - and I shall not mentionthem - around this table would suffer disintegration today.” These are basicformulations in which India’s own vital national interest is never far fromMenon’s mind.

The speeches on the Chinese representation in the United Nations are importantformulations of the well-known Nehru policy. Throughout the 1950s India wasconsistently arguing for the Chinese presence in the United Nations. Towards theend of the 1950s came the problems about Tibet and the border. Menon does notgloss over these realities but refuses to be persuaded to give up the earlier policyof supporting Chinese membership of the U.N.

Three major world problems are also discussed in these speeches - the Congo,Suez, and Hungary. Both on the Congo question and on Suez, India had a greatdeal to contribute and Menon’s speeches indicate this. The Suez interventions areof particular interest because they synchronise with Menon’s successfuldiplomacy outside the United Nations in London and elsewhere. Looking backwith the advantages of new perceptions after almost forty years, the interestingthing is the moderation with which Menon put forward the anti-colonial positionwithout leaving behind any permanent hostility. Both Britain and France werecriticised but in a gentle tone. The Hungary episode produced some well-knownembarrassments. There is, however, no attempt to fudge the issue. Menon makesit clear that the very first resolution criticising the Soviet military action containedsome objectionable formulations which made it impossible for India to vote forthe resolution. Abstention was the only possible option. However, in all thespeeches there is no self-censorship in criticising the military occupation of asovereign member of the United Nations by other member States. Menon quotesNehru again on this subject: “We are not neutral where human freedom isconcerned”. Another important aspect of India’s diplomatic initiatives on thisproblem has to be noted. It is always a multi-nation initiative along with Burma,Indonesia and Ceylon. It was group diplomacy at its most effective. Nothing verymuch was achieved. It was a major world issue in which a new middle power hadvery little of substance to contribute, but on basic issues of sovereignty andfreedom, the Indian position was articulated again and again with no specialconcern for the sensitivities in Moscow. “The position that a great uprising of apeople, whether bad or good elements enter into it, whether it takes some uglyturn or not, can ever be suppressed by force of arms, that, in our view, isfallacious. What is more, our people have been very much moved lately by thekind of resistance without arms that is arising in Hungary, because it strikes achord of remembrance in our own hearts when a great and powerful Empirerefused to listen to the voice of reason, because our people said: ‘No’.”

India’s participation in the Korean episode is well known. The speeches in thisvolume deal only with the later developments, particularly the problemsconcerning the repatriation of prisoners. India’s attitude towards China is broughtout in all its understanding and friendliness on many occasions. India was anatural mediator in Asian problems like Indo-China and Korea. In a significantphrase reminding us of Nehru’s speech in the Asian Relations Conference in1947, Menon sees India as situated “between two continents”.

There are some interesting nuances in the 1957 speech on the peacefulcoexistence of States. The formulation of the Panch Sheel principle is seen as aparallel development. Menon is quite detached about the question whether theIndia-China formulation was original or creative. It was just an inevitabledevelopment in the post-colonial situation which traced its roots to the colonialperiod. In fact, Menon traces the various formulations on non-interference andequality in relations between nations to the United States’ pronouncement on 26November 1941, just two weeks before Pearl Harbor. The only addition becauseof the cold war on external interventions in the domestic affairs of States is theinclusion of the ideological concept in addition to the familiar economic andpolitical areas. Menon points out that this was the formulation first made in thestatement after Jawaharlal Nehru’s visit to Moscow in 1955.

Towards the end of Menon’s association with the United Nations. the India-Chinaborder problem came to the fore. There are some important speeches in thisvolume on the Tibetan question after Dalai Lama’s arrival in India in 1959. Hegoes into the history of the Sino-Tibetan relationship and makes carefuldistinctions between the ideas of “effective” suzerainty and “conditional”suzerainty. He makes it clear to the world audience that in spite of the Tibetanirritation and the violation of India’s borders by China, there would be nodifference to the position which obtained under the 1954 Agreement on Tibet.There is always the sad wistful hope that the Dalai Lama would be finallyable to return to the country.

There is one other facet of the speeches which Menon made towards the very endof his association with the U.N. in the early 1960s. As Minister of Defence he wasassociated very much in the Goa developments. In fact, there are two speecheshere made only a few weeks before the liberation of Goa which carefullyarticulate India’s position. Menon makes it abundantly clear that India had notgiven up the use of force as far as the problem of colonialism was concerned. On13 November 1961 he talks generally about the use of force in internationalrelations when necessary alluding to Kashmir, the China Frontier problem and toGoa. One week later in the general statement on the independence of colonialcountries, Menon specifically mentions Goa and Portugal again and clearlyrefuses to abjure the use of force.

There are several other important speeches in this compilation which bring outIndia’s policy on several matters like the membership of the United Nations, the

problems faced by American officials in the U.N. Secretariat in the period ofMcCarthyism and the economic development of underdeveloped countries. Weget here the earliest foreshadowings of the North-South divide. The peaceful usesof atomic energy are discussed along with the establishment of the IAEA and thecrucial role played by India as a country and Dr. Bhabha personally in that majorepisode in the mid-1950s. Connected with these subjects is the problem of thedangers of radiation as a consequence of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Thisis different from the other major question of the consequences of atmosphericnuclear tests discussed in the volume on Disarmament.

It was, on the whole, a long and fruitful association. The participation by Menonin almost all the important debates in the U.N. for ten years is significant. It is amatter of interesting historical detail that the earliest speech, perhaps, made byMenon in the U.N. was on the status of post-war Spain in the World Body on 12December 1946. It is a good speech full of nostalgic pride about his and his peergroup’s excitement about the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s. On 21September 1962, after sixteen years, he made a brief intervention - also includedin this volume - welcoming the successful resolution of the dispute between theNetherlands and Indonesia on the West Irian problem.

This fourth volume in the project initiated by Mr. E.S. Reddy and carried out bythe Krishna Menon Memorial Society, completes the present series. Outside thisenterprise, also initiated by Mr. Reddy, is the volume of the Indian diplomat’sspeeches in the U.N. on South Africa. Perhaps, there are one or two more volumesto be prepared in the future consisting of Menon’s interventions in the IndianParliament. It is on the whole a remarkable corpus which perpetuates the memoryof two men and a nation in an important transitional epoch in post-war history.

A.K. DamodaranNew Delhi1 August 1996

PART I

COLONIALISM

ALGERIA


[An armed struggle for independence was launched in Algeria in 1954 under theleadership of the National Liberation Front (FLN). France resorted to extensiverepression and military action, with nearly half a million troops in the territory.The colonial war resulted in enormous casualties.

The question of Algeria was included in the agenda of the General Assembly in1955 at the request of Asian and Arab States. France boycotted the discussion,claiming that Algeria was an integral part of France and the matter was withinthe domestic jurisdiction of France under Article 2(7) of the Charter of the UnitedNations. Discussion in the General Assembly was adjourned without a resolution.

As the situation deteriorated, Asian-Arab States requested the Security Council inJune 1956 to consider the situation. Following objections by France, the Councildecided by 7 votes to 2, with 2 abstentions, not to include the matter in its agenda.

Later that year, the question of Algeria was again included in the agenda of theGeneral Assembly at the request of Asian-Arab States. On February 15, 1957, theAssembly unanimously adopted a resolution - 1012 (XI) - merely expressing "thehope that, in a spirit of co-operation, a peaceful, democratic and just solution willbe found, through appropriate means, in conformity with the principles of theUnited Nations Charter."

As this led to no negotiations and as violence increased, the Assembly consideredthe matter again at its next session at the end of 1957. The following is thestatement by Mr. Menon during the debate on the item.

After discussion, the Assembly adopted a very moderate resolution - 1184(XII)expressing the wish that pourparlers and other appropriate means would beutilised with a view to a solution in conformity with the purposes and principles ofthe United Nations Charter.]

...We are considering this matter now for the third time. Last year the Assemblypassed a unanimous resolution. It would not be right to regard that resolution asnot making a recommendation. The phraseology of the Assembly is always suchthat it cannot give a mandate to any country, but the nations assembled hereexpressed the hope that there would be a peaceful solution. This hope hasunfortunately not been fructified, and in this part of North Africa war still rages,

3 Source: Foreign Affairs Record, New Delhi, December 1957

and both the French people and the Algerian people continue to suffer. It isimpossible to estimate the figures or the extent of the casualties or debts and otherhardships arising from the war. One sometimes sees phenomenal figures. Butwhatever these may be, there is little doubt that this war has dragged on too longfor the conscience of the world to remain unconcerned about it...

My Government has considered the statements made by the Foreign Minister ofFrance. I do not propose at present to go into details about it. We standfoursquare on the principle of national independence. We regard independence asterritorial. We do not regard national independence as limited by the bounds ofrace, religion or creed. If we were to say that each racial group should have itsown national independence, then in a country like this, the United States ofAmerica, there would be very many national States. It would not be quitepracticable; it would be running all over the country.

The main reason for my intervention in this debate is to express the hope thatbetween now and the time of the resolution stage it will be possible for us to cometo a unanimous decision as we did last year, which I must frankly confess will notsolve the Algerian question at this Assembly; nobody expects it to do so. But atany rate it would not aggravate the situation. It would lead to the furtherance ofnegotiations. It is essential, if we are to do that, that there must be a certainamount of give and take. There can be no give on the side of the people whowant independence and as far as the principle of national independence isconcerned. But there can be and there will be the desire to achieve that bymethods of discussion, or whatever word is used for it...

I am purposely refraining from entering into details, except to make it quite clearthat our people and Government will at no time make any compromises in regardto the independence of colonial peoples. And neither any definition of the Charternor any legal interpretations can argue people into dependence. We also think, inthe background of our experience, that once that independence is gained, co-operation between former rulers and former colonials, on a basis of equality andmutual respect, is possible. But it is possible only if that co-operation comes byfree will from both sides. Co-operation that is compelled still spells domination.

We have a great deal of trust in the wisdom of France and also in the good senseof the peoples of Algeria and their friends to hope that given a little time, even inregard to the Assembly solution, shall we say by tomorrow, it may be possible forus to work out an Assembly solution which would enable the discussions betweenthe French Government and those who can deliver the goods in Algeria tocontinue.

I stated on behalf of my Government last year that Algeria means the whole ofAlgeria, and we cannot escape the issue of Algerian nationalism, the rights thatarise from that, the aspirations that are there, by evading it by various phrases. Itwould be impossible to think, as regards Algeria - as, I am sorry to say, appears in

the speeches of the Foreign Minister of France - that certain solutions may lead tothe partition of Algeria. When a country is partitioned, those who belong to thecountry will try to unite it, unless it is a partition by agreement, as happened inour case.

We do not try to undo the partition. But in other places partitions have come inother ways. Thirty and 40 years have left the aftermath of it. Therefore, it is thehope of my delegation that if at this stage it were possible for the Assembly tocome to a decision that there should be a recommendation for the continuation ofdiscussions, with a view to finding a solution - and such solutions, naturally, inthe modern world would have to be in the context of democratic conditions - thatwould be the best way out...

We reserve our position in regard to the various matters, which we are entitledunder the rules of procedure to take up at the resolution stage and we express thehope that the private talks that are going on and have been going on intensivelyfor the last forty-eight hours outside this room, between various parties, will resultin the continuation of discussions without it being vitiated by insistences that arenot necessary at present. All negotiations, all discussions are for a solution. Whatshould go into that solution is to be decided at the discussions. If we start arguingthe items that should go into that solution in this particular problem and at thisstage, I am afraid we shall get nowhere...

Statement in the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly,December 13, 19584

[The question of Algeria was again considered by the General Assembly in 1958as there was no progress in implementation of resolution 1184 (XVII). France,which participated in the discussions at the two previous sessions of the Assemblyagain boycotted the discussion in 1958.

Mr. Menon spoke in support of a draft resolution, sponsored by 17 Asian-AfricanStates, under which the General Assembly would recognise the right of theAlgerian people to independence, and urge negotiations between the two partiesconcerned to reach a solution in conformity with the United Nations Charter. Thedraft was not adopted by the Assembly as it received one vote short of therequired two-thirds majority.]

My delegation, at the outset, considers it necessary to refer to the specialcircumstances in which this debate takes place, and expresses its extreme regret atthe absence of the delegation of France...


This is not a matter between the Algerian people and France, for the situationbetween the Algerian national movement and France is a matter which affects theAssembly. That is to say, the item has been inscribed, France has taken part inthis discussion, and we are constantly told that the movement in France towardscolonial problems, and particularly in regard to Algeria, is a progressive one. Yetwe are not favoured with the participation of the one Government which can bringthis war to an end.

We say this not by way of protest, not by way of condemnation, not by way ofsitting in judgement, but as an expression of our sadness that we will not have thisparticipation. It would be bad enough if it were one of the eighty-one Statesmembers of the United Nations without any particular qualifications; but here wehave one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, charged, morethan others, with world security and the maintenance of international peace, notbeing able, or not willing, to assist us in these discussions...

This is all the more regrettable since there is a new Republic in France, the FifthRepublic. With regard to this particular problem, the head of the Fifth Republicsaid to the world, in October of this year, after the Assembly met: "What must beachieved is the basic transformation of this country" - meaning Algeria; he did notsay "this colony"; "country" means that there are nationals who belong to thatcountry, a place which is the homeland of the people - "so brave, so alive, but alsoso full of difficulties and suffering. This means that all Algeria must have a sharein modern civilisation, and it must be brought to them in terms of well-being anddignity." If he had simply said "well-being," one could have understood that itwas a paternal government of a colonial country. But General de Gaulle’sproclamation stands. It means that the personality of Algeria, its position as acountry, was recognised as late as October; and he pledges to the world that thatcountry, so far as he is concerned, must live in terms of dignity. What is moreessential to the dignity of a people than freedom? How can a country live interms of dignity and modern civilisation, even if we give it education, even if wegive it food, and build roads - all dictators build roads, you know - and supply allthe creature comforts, but without freedom?

Therefore, we must, still hope that this declaration of French policy, which wascirculated to us all on 3 October, stands true and will be respected. Our regret isall the greater that the French Government is not participating in this debate; sincethe Assembly is drawing to a close, it would be an idle wish that we might correctthis situation. But in view of the moderation of the debates that have taken placein this chamber - and those who have participated are mainly countries whoseviews on colonial rule and the liberation of peoples are well-known; but, in spiteof that, the appeal has been for negotiation between the metropolitan Power andthe people; there is no strong resolution before us, there have been no speeches ofwild condemnation - we hope that the voice of so many nations, even though thecolonial Powers have not taken a substantial part in the debate, will be heard in

France, particularly by the Head of State, and that he will interpret that as anoverwhelming part of world opinion.

A corollary to that is the statement of the leader of the nationalist movement inAlgeria. I hope my friends who have sponsored the draft resolution will not thinkI am fighting shy of the words "Provisional Government of the AlgerianRepublic",5 but I want to place this particular aspect of my observations in acontext which does not create difficulties for those who have not recognised thisgovernment. The head of this Government said, in September of this year: "Thepresence of Frenchmen and Europeans in Algeria does not pose an insolubleproblem. It is certain that Algeria, freed of colonialists" - that is, the colonialPower - "will have neither first nor second-class citizens. The Algerian Republicwill make no distinction due to race or religion among those who wish to remainAlgerians. Fundamental guarantees will be given to all citizens so that they mayparticipate in the total life of the nation. All legitimate interests will berespected." This was the statement made by the head of this ProvisionalGovernment who, at any rate, at the minimum, should be considered as the headof the effective nationalist movement of Algeria.

He goes on to say: "The efforts of this Government" - he is speaking for hisGovernment - "will be to find a peaceful solution through negotiation; and therewill be a response, but this will not be a response to a request for unconditionalsurrender." It is not for my Government to endorse the second part of thestatement, which refers to France; but we can accept the first part, certainly, thatthe efforts of the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic will bedevoted to finding a peaceful solution.

The head of a movement that is engaged in armed resistance in order to establishthe freedom of his country comes forward with an offer that he is prepared to finda peaceful solution. We consider the response to it should be adequate and of areciprocal character.

THIS MATTER HAS BEEN BEFORE US NOW FOR THREE YEARS. Wehave had before us the questions of other territories of North Africa of differenttypes. We had before us, for many years, the question of the country of the lastspeaker, Tunisia; and we can remember the speeches made at that time, by Franceand its allies, to the effect that the Tunisians were Frenchmen and, therefore, thedecision must rest with France. Now, history has decided otherwise. Tunisia,today, is an independent State in common with Morocco; the Protectorate whichadministered French sovereignty over that territory has been withdrawn, so thatthe sovereignty inherent in its people has blossomed into a Republic.

What is the position with regard to Algeria? There are a great many countriesrepresented here which are influenced in this matter by juridical considerations,

5 The Provisional Government was established on September 26, 1958.

perhaps with the apprehension that there may be some interference in the affairsof a sovereign nation, one of the five permanent members of the Security Councilof the United Nations. The position with regard to Algeria is as follows. Algeriawas surrendered by the Turks when it was part of the Ottoman Empire. TheFrench proclaimed Algeria as an integral part of France. That was an act ofconquest; and conquest, particularly in modern times, confers the reciprocal rightof rebellion. Conquest is an act of force majeure. It is not a juridical act: it is apolitical act; and every conquest confers the right of rebellion. It is written intothe American Declaration of Independence, and into the declarations ofindependence of many countries, including my own, that where people aregoverned against their will they have the right to rid themselves of that rule.

In 1834, France proclaimed Algeria as an integral part of France. But if thisfact had remained alone, this problem would have a different complexion.However, immediately France proclaimed Algeria as an integral part of France,and the rule of the Ottoman Empire was terminated, not by the people but byFrance; the peoples of Algeria rebelled against it as early as 1847. So we aredealing not with an ephemeral, a temporary or a passing phase of the resistance ofa people. The peoples of Algeria have been fighting the thraldom of an empirefor nearly 100 years; and the French conquest of Algeria met with resistanceunder the national leader of that day, Abd-El-Kader. He surrendered. Thatsurrender again, was surrender to physical force; and it carries with it, as itscorollary, the right to resist when you are able to wake up.

Then there was quiescence for a period. But in our own time, after the conclusionof the First World War, North Africans in Paris started a movement, moderate inits character, which proclaimed the right of the Algerian peoples to freedom.Then came the years of the Second World War, and the Algerian nationalistspresented to the Allies stationed in Algeria a manifesto demanding sovereignty;and there was no greater supporter, not in exact terms but in sentiment, of thismovement than the present leader of the French nation, General de Gaulle. It wasthe first time he proclaimed, on behalf of the Free French Government of the day,that it was proper and appropriate that the Algerians - whom the French call the"Moslem Algerians" - had the right to citizenship without renouncing their status.

This is the background in which we are functioning. We have on the one hand theproclamation of French policy which has recognised Algeria as a country - andwhat is more, two years ago the Foreign Minister of France told this Assemblythat the French Government recognised the personality of Algeria. What is apersonality if it is not a personality, that is to say, it has the right to express itsperson? So if there is any suggestion today that this matter must be decided inmetropolitan France, that the Algerian people have no right to their independence,then there is a regression from the position already communicated to the GeneralAssembly...

THE LIBERATION MOVEMENT WHICH IS THE MAIN RESISTANCE andthe arm of the Algerian people, today is at war with the French Government - andI say this deliberately for reasons which I hope will soon become clear - becausewhen there are more than half a million modern troops in that country you can nolonger call it a civil commotion. When the forces of the French Republic on land,air and sea are being utilised among a people which is comparatively unarmed -but still armed, which makes it a war - I think it is necessary for us to mention thefact in this debate that, apart from all political questions, we should appeal to theGovernment of France and to the leaders of the Algerian people, to apply verystrictly to this struggle the terms of the Geneva Convention. That is, irrespectiveof the recognition of the Algerian Republic, according to the Convention of whichFrance is a signatory, these people are entitled to be treated as belligerents, withall the consequences that follow from it. Neither party - more particularly theGovernment of France that is a signatory to the Convention - would have the rightto treat these prisoners except under strict conformity with this Convention,providing for their housing - not to put them in common jails - providing forrights of internment, for medical attention, for repatriation to neutral nations inregard to these belligerents; so that when a situation like the arrest of persons whoare travelling under Moroccan hospitality and therefore at least in effect under theMoroccan flag, comes under hostile action, it is a violation of this Convention.

It is the view of my Government that irrespective of all political settlements thathave been made, humanity requires that the status of belligerency should berecognised and therefore the prisoners - and those others who come under hostileaction on either side - are entitled to all the amenities, all the consideration and allthe laws of humanity that are embodied in this Convention, of which France is asignatory.

The Government of India has never resigned its position in regard toindependence of the Algerian people. We have at times allowed the wordspersonality, entity, and so on, to be used in order to facilitate negotiations.Equally, we have never departed from the view that peaceful solutions are morelikely to be permanent, more likely to be effective.

Within the last two years, there have been other parts of the French Empire -whether they be protectorates or colonies - which have emerged intoindependence. Only yesterday we welcomed one of these territories as a MemberState of the United Nations.6 I think members of this Committee, whendiscussing this matter, could put aside the large number of details that have beenintroduced into the discussion and just consider whether, if it is possible forGuinea, with a population of two million, the territories of Indo-China which,after waging sanguinary war with France won a military victory and thereforewere able to establish their independence, for the other territories of theFederation of French West Africa and of Equatorial Africa, for the territoriesunder trusteeship, for all these territories to emerge into independence, the

6 The Republic of Guinea became a member of the United Nations on October 12, 1958.

Algerian people alone are to be kept in a state of helotry.

And what is their sin? The main argument which has been used in regard toAlgeria is that out of ten million people one-and-a-half million people areEuropeans or of European descent. Are we to understand that because a colonialpeople, either by the laws of hospitality or by the laws of conquest and ofsurrender, have permitted or acquired the occupation of some part of its territoryby some other people, it is therefore to be denied liberty for ever? That is to say,the representatives of people who belong more to modern civilisation, andparticularly of France, which is wedded to the ideas of liberty, who have becomeresidents of this land - should they, therefore, deny to others liberty? And shouldthey refuse to accept citizenship in this vast territory and come under thegovernment under democratic considerations? I say this because it is the view ofthe Government of India that an independent Algeria, as stated by Mr. Abbas,7

should and would extend the whole of that freedom without distinction as to raceor religion. Therefore the colons, the residents, those others who come intoAlgeria would be Algerian nationals.

The position in the past has been, under the French constitution, that onlyFrenchmen could be citizens. Now I have no desire to make comparative studiesof these two constitutions - the constitutions of the Fifth and Fourth Republics -but it is interesting to note, whatever its purposes may have been, that theconstitution of the Fifth Republic refers to this fact: national sovereignty belongsto the people. The previous constitution said: national sovereignty belongs to theFrench people. The French have been accustomed to calling everybody in theFrench Empire a Frenchman. May I say here, with great appreciation, thatalthough the British ruled us for three hundred years one way or another, and forninety years more as an imperial Power, they never called us Englishmen - theyspared us that, and we parted in friendship. But they have been calledFrenchmen, and under the previous constitution sovereignty belonged to theFrench people, under the present constitution sovereignty belongs to the people.And if you put that side by side with the recognition of Algerian personality, withthe statement of de Gaulle that Algeria is a country - and he speaks about its greatpeople - I submit that under the terms of the present constitution of France itselfthe sovereignty of Algeria rests in the Algerian people.

The matter having come before the Assembly, it passed resolutions year afteryear. Each of these resolutions is singularly free from any words expressingcondemnation or any kind of phraseology which would create embarrassment tothe French Government... in each case the United Nations either noted or offeredthe good offices of high personalities. In the first instance it called upon theSecretary-General to offer his good offices and find a solution throughappropriate means - it did not even prescribe the means, but spoke of finding ademocratic and just solution through appropriate means - in conformity with theprinciples of the Charter of the United Nations.

7 Ferhat Abbas, head of the Provisional Government of Algeria

This Assembly has now been informed that in fact it has not taken place, nor werethe good offices of the United Nations used in order to bring this sanguinary warto an end. And today the situation is that there are half a million troops, with allthe weapons of war by land, sea and air, entailing the expenditure of $ 3 million aday. We might well sit down here and contemplate that this billion dollars a year,if it had gone into the paternal estate of France for the betterment of its peopleduring the last fifty years, would have improved the situation. There is alwaysmoney to be found for war and suppression, but little for other purposes.

The Government of France expends $ 3 million a day in order to wage waragainst 10 million people, or the majority of the people of Algeria, and while Ihave no desire to introduce other matters, since France remains in militaryalliance with a large number of powerful countries, it must at least be expectedthat it is able to release considerable instruments of war of its own for thepurposes of this colonial war. The same thing happened in Indo-China, but there,after many years, the more effective opponents of rule gained a military victory.Are we to wait for the time when the same situation exists in Algeria when thisconflict has had its repercussions upon neighbouring lands? There is a differencebetween the situation in Southeast Asia and that in North Africa.

Algeria is surrounded by territories which are charged with a spirit of nascentnationalism and territories that are allied in kinship, by race and other features,with the people who are under suppression. As stated in the draft resolutionbefore us, the continuance of this situation can lead to a breach of internationalpeace. The Assembly must take into account the fact that this is a large-scale war,waged by one of the most powerful nations of the world - one of the great Powers,one of the Powers responsible for international peace and security more than theseventy-seven others under the Charter of the United Nations, a Power which, byits historic and traditional practice, is wedded to the conceptions of liberty,fraternity and equality which from the constitution of the eighteenth century havebeen transferred into every single constitution afterwards, including theconstitution of the Fifth Republic.

THEREFORE, WE COME HERE AGAIN THIS YEAR TO CONSIDER THISSUBJECT with the same appeal - the appeal that there shall be negotiations inorder to bring the war to an end and establish the independence of the Algerianpeople. We have now come to a stage in the debate when there is a draftresolution before the Assembly and my delegation will support this draftresolution. We will support it not with a reservation but with qualifications andexplanations...

The draft resolution does not ask anyone to recognise the Provisional Governmentof the Republic. It says: "the willingness of the Provisional Government of theAlgerian Republic to enter into negotiations with the Government of France," and

"Urges negotiations between" them. We do not urge negotiations between themin order that they may be recognised as a Government but in order to find "asolution in conformity with the Charter." Therefore, I would say this draftresolution, like all resolutions, can be differently worded or better worded, butthis one, as it stands, does not offer any insurmountable difficulties in the mind ofany country which, like ours, has not recognised the Provisional Government orthe Algerian Republic. It is a resolution which, for the most part, recalls previousdecisions of the General Assembly; it recognises "the right of the Algerian peopleto independence" which is inherent or expressed in the Charter; it expressesconcern at the great slaughter that is going on in Algeria of a comparativelyunarmed people. One newspaper wrote that one cannon-burst can kill fiftyAlgerians, while an Algerian sniper might or might not get a Frenchman.

Then, in the preambular paragraph, the draft resolution says "the present situationin Algeria constitutes a threat to international peace and security". We can wellremember situations, which are less grave than this, inviting the attention of theAssembly and the Assembly taking strong, effective and prompt action, andcountries which are allied to others by military alliances, by traditional friendship,by kinship of religion, race, civilisation and everything else, taking the positionthat the aggressor must withdraw.

If I may say so, whatever may be the juridical position in this matter, the positionof France in Algeria today is not that of a colonial Power trying to restore order,but of a sovereign country committing aggression upon a land that is free, becausein all colonies the sovereignty remains vested in the people and when they chooseto assert it they become independent. So that as far as the people are concerned,Algeria is an independent country whose independence is being violated by theforce of French arms and therefore the position of France in Algeria is that of acountry waging war, committing aggression upon a people.

The operative part of this draft resolution does not ask for condemnation of theFrench Government; it does not ask for anything more than negotiation. It asksfor negotiations between these two parties because negotiations, if they areserious, must be between those who are able to deliver the goods. It has been partof the argument against negotiations to ask: "With whom will we negotiate?"Without disrespect to anyone, that is a common argument from a colonial Power.Here, however, it is now possible to negotiate with a party that is in effectivehostility with the French Government and if it is strong enough to wage war andresist and to carry on for three years against such powerful odds, then it must beassumed that it is possible to enter into effective negotiations and come to asettlement, at least leading to the cessation of hostilities to which I feel that,irrespective of political views, every State member of this Assembly would lookforward.

OUR OWN POSITION IN THIS MATTER HAS BEEN STATED FULLY by

the Prime Minister of India. He said very recently, I believe after the Assemblybegan:

"The French Government have often said they did not know whom to dealwith. I think it may well be said that at present what is called theProvisional Government of Algeria represents all the elements in Algeriannationalism, moderate and extremist."

In fact, the head of this Government was recognised by France as a verymoderate leader, living in France most of the time, and I believe he was amember of the French Chamber.

"And therefore it should be easy to deal with them as representingAlgerian nationalism. I would hope, therefore, that the FrenchGovernment - General de Gaulle - will deal with these people, because itis obvious that there is no other way of settling the Algerian problemexcept in recognising Algerian freedom."

Our Prime Minister has equally stated that the question of the immediaterecognition of the Provisional Government in Algeria raises other problems. Thereal test in our minds has been how we can help in this matter and not merelymake a gesture without helping. This comes from a Government that has notrecognised the Republic of Algeria but at the same time regards its emergence andthe position of the leaders of the Algerian movement as providing an answer tothe oft-repeated argument, "With whom are we to negotiate?" There are twoparties; one, the holders, according to French law, of juridical power, armed withall the modern weapons, waging the war in Algeria for three years, with morethan half of the army committed and the greater part if not the whole of theForeign Legion, and no doubt having, even if not for that purpose, the indirectassistance that must come to a Power in military alliances from the vast resourcesthat lie behind in reserve. On the other hand are people who, in spite of all theirsuffering, have not surrendered in three years. And, what is more, Mr. Abbas tellsGeneral de Gaulle, "When we offer to negotiate, we do not do so in terms ofsurrender."

We say, therefore, that a situation has now arisen in which, if there was anygenuine desire for peace and for creating a situation in North Africa which wouldnot lead to further international complications, which would not endanger in anysense relations such as they are between the independent countries of NorthAfrica, notably the ones recently freed from French rule and the rest of them, itwould be the policy of wisdom and humanity and of common sense to try to bringabout negotiations. If the French Government has to negotiate in any other way,that negotiation would be something depending entirely on their will in pickingand choosing the people with whom they would talk. If you pick and choose thepeople you are talking to, in a sense you are talking to yourself, and it is notcommon sense to talk to oneself if you are sane. Political sanity requires,

therefore, that they should speak to their opponents.

We are told that there should be a cessation of hostilities before that. Now, as thecessation of hostilities itself requires negotiation, it is also enjoined therefore onthe French Government to enter into negotiations - as I said, the FrenchGovernment only - because the offer of negotiations on the other side, thewillingness to negotiate, has already come; and such negotiations have to takeplace in conditions where results will follow and, in view of certain events thathave occurred recently, would have to take place in conditions where both partiesfeel a sense of security. They obviously could not take place on the battlefields ofAlgeria; perhaps, equally, they cannot take place where French authority aloneremains, in view of present circumstances.

I should like to state here that when the question of Indo-China came up fouryears ago, the same problem arose: Who are we to negotiate with? And,ultimately, we had the situation where negotiations took place between thoseparties which were factually in a position to negotiate...

There is no escape from these facts; the worst freedom we could ever ask forwould be freedom from facts. These facts are before us. And, in this massacre -that is what it really comes to - and with all hardships it is inflicting on the Frenchpeople and on the Algerian people, with all the feelings of the whole world,notably in Asia and Africa, with its consequences of alienating the sympathies ofnew nations that have come into existence - taking all that into consideration, thisAssembly should make a unanimous appeal to the French Government tonegotiate. We should also convey to it that we express our regret, not byresolutions, and we should convey to them that they should take account of thefact that we all regret their representatives' absence from this Assembly,particularly because France is not only a member of this Assembly but one of thefive great countries on which the structure of the United Nations rests.

My Government therefore hopes this will be done. As I said, every resolution canbe improved by every delegation, and each delegation, I think, would be justifiedin thinking they could draft it better - but, here, what we are providing is not aconstitution for Algeria, it is not even going into the details of negotiation. Wehave to look at the orientation of this resolution, and that orientation is therecognition of Algerian independence, that orientation is a request to recognisethat a party who can deliver the goods is willing; and, therefore, there must be aresponse, and all this under the umbrella of the Charter.

That being the general orientation of this draft resolution, and containing nowords of condemnation to a country which is friendly to all the other eightycountries represented here, and with whom we as a Government and a peoplehave very close and harmonious relations - and as far as we had any problems ofthis kind to solve, they are for the most part solved by friendly negotiation, andonly the juridical sovereignty of French possessions in India remains to be

terminated; and it was without any feelings of animosity that we approached this.We think, therefore, that there should be no hesitation in the minds of people likeourselves who may have difficulty with regard to the juridical aspect of thisquestion. No issue of the recognition of any particular Government of Algeriaarises, no issue as to the particular method of negotiation arises, no issue ofjudging the rights and wrongs of this question, apart from the whole issue ofcolonialism, arises.

We have here, in our submission, a draft resolution of a character calculated andcertainly designed to promote the purposes of peace rather than of conflict.

MAY I SAY, THEREFORE, BEFORE LEAVING THIS SUBJECT, that thegreat mistake for any country, particularly the great Powers, is to think that yearsof war, whether four or 400, will ever suppress a people’s desire for freedom.The whole of Asia, and now Africa, is replete with examples where the power ofa strong arm has never been able to suppress a people...

My delegation therefore lends its support to this draft resolution, withoutreservation, but with the qualifications I have mentioned. Our relations withFrance are of the most harmonious character. We have the highest respect for theway they have dealt with some of their colonial areas and we look forward to theprospective and almost immediate liberation of another part of the former Frenchcolonial empire which is now under trusteeship, we look forward to the extensionof and to be able to feel that the concept of freedom in the newly proclaimedRepublics of the Ivory Coast and Dahomey is as real as it is in Guinea, so that thearena of freedom will be extended to Africa.

Algeria is a black spot; the oil of the Sahara - if there is any there - or even thesands of the Sahara, or whatever wealth there may be, will not be prejudiced bythe liberation of these people because no wealth will ever come out of anyterritory without the application of human labour, and that has to come from thepeoples of Africa because they alone can inhabit that area. Therefore, theinterests of France, the interests of those people, the interests of endingbloodshed, and the implementation of the purposes of the Charter - all thatrequires that there should be a turning of this tide and, in accordance with thehopes which were aroused in recent times, that there should be negotiation... Welook forward to this draft serving this purpose; and not only the resolution but thedebate in this Assembly. The Assembly has addressed itself to this problem withgreat moderation. We appeal to a people who have great generosity in manyways - and what is more, in whom the memory of oppression, the memory ofoccupation, the torture of their own people, the taking away of their lands and thejack-boot on their own soil, is recent, and who could be more conscious of thefeelings that a people must have when their homeland is under foreignoccupation.

With these words, I have presented the views of my Government on the whole ofthis question, and my delegation will support this resolution.

CYPRUS

[The question of Cyprus was first brought before the United Nations in 1954 byGreece which wished to secure the union of Cyprus with Greece. Mr. Menonopposed the inclusion of the item in the agenda on the formulation presented byGreece, and was almost alone in stressing that Cyprus was a colonial territoryentitled to self-government and independence.

The question was discussed for several years, as Britain, Greece and Turkey presstheir conflicting claims and views. The Indian position, pressed persistently,gained increasing support.

Cyprus attained independence in 1960 and was admitted to the United Nations.]

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, September 24,19548

[Mr. Menon made this statement to explain why India would not vote for theinclusion of the item in the agenda in the formulation presented by Greece. Theitem was placed in the agenda, however, by 30 votes to 19, with 11 abstentions.]

My delegation normally does not seek to explain its vote because the vote itself isan explanation of one’s attitude. However, in this particular matter, we areobliged to do so in order that there should be no misunderstanding of our position.My Government and my country stand for the independence of nations. Thearguments we have heard here have nothing to do with the Cyprian nation andnationhood. This is a question of Greece, on the one hand, and the UnitedKingdom, on the other, wanting possession of these islands. I have read this itemas tabled by the Greek delegation: "Application, under the auspices of the UnitedNations, of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples in thecase of the population of the Island of Cyprus." There is no talk here about thepeople of Cyprus; there is no argument about the nationhood of Cyprus as such.

The position of our Government is that we would support and we desire theestablishment of self-government and independence according to the wishes ofthe people wherever possible - and we hope it will be possible everywhere - bypeaceful methods of conciliation and negotiation for their freedom. If freedomand self-government were the issue, we would support the inscription of this item,but we cannot support the inscription of an item where the issue is as I havestated.

8 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Ninth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages 59-60

There are three claimants. There is the United Kingdom, and Greece, and nowTurkey. Very soon it may become a free-for-all!

We therefore regard this island as the homeland of its peoples, entitled tonationhood and independence. I disagree with my very good friend andcolleague, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd,9 who spoke of it as "a strategic necessity." It is thehomeland of the Cyprian nation.

We regard nationhood as territorial; it makes no difference to us whether, in aparticular territory, people are of one ethnic group or another. Therefore, theterritory of Cyprus is regarded by us as the homeland of a people entitled to therecognition of their nationhood. We hope that those who are responsible for theiraffairs will advance them in the near future on the road to full self-governmentand independence as speedily as possible, so that they will become entitled toderive the benefits of what is stated in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter andalso in the Preamble.

...I have heard it said by both sides that it is not possible for a small island likeCyprus to have independence and nationhood. I should like to quote someexamples. There are several republics in Central America with populations ofvery nearly three-quarters of a million people; these republics have neighbourswho are powerful. If there is a case of fear of neighbours, they should be afraid oftheirs. Although independent, their populations are not larger than that of Cyprus.There is also the notable example of the great little country of Iceland, with apopulation of 145,000 people. It is totally independent and, what is more, it haddemocratic and parliamentary institutions before the United Kingdom. Thus, weconsider that the smallness of a country is not an argument against itsindependence.

The real issue, therefore, should be the nationhood and independence of Cyprusand their establishment, and not the transfer of the territory from one country toanother. We are not able to subscribe to the argument with regard to strategicconsiderations...

In these circumstances, my delegation proclaims without equivocation that itstands for the independence of peoples, the establishment of nationalindependence and the basing of their associations with others, as are ours, uponfree will and co-operation. We equally oppose the idea that this territory -because some people went to live there at one time or another, or because it isstrategically valuable, or because it is valuable in other ways - is a matter of barterand exchange between those who have it and those who wish to have it.

For these reasons we shall not be able to support the inscription of this item asproposed.

9 Representative of the United Kingdom

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, February 22, 195710

[The question of Cyprus was discussed by the General Assembly in February1957 in the context of increased tension in the island and in relations betweenBritain and Greece and Greece and Turkey.

India submitted a draft resolution by which the Assembly would express theearnest desire that a peaceful, democratic and just solution would be found inaccordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, andthe hope that negotiations would be resumed and continued to that end. It wasadopted on February 26, 1957, as resolution 1013 (XI) by 57 votes to 0, with oneabstention.]

(Summary)

Mr. Krishna Menon reiterated the position stated by his Government in the past,namely that the problem was largely one of Cypriot nationality, and that India wasconcerned with the independence of Cyprus in conditions maintaining thenational, territorial integrity of that country and enabling it to co-operate freelywith its present rulers if it so desired. The Government of India understood that tobe the general basis of British policy. As had been the case in the past, of course,the element of time played a very important part. Quoting from the statement hehad made at the ninth session of the General Assembly, he declared that Indiaregarded Cyprus as the homeland of its peoples, entitled to nationhood andindependence. That opinion appeared to have made great progress both in theUnited Kingdom and in Greece since the question had first come to the GeneralAssembly.

There were at least two Member States with populations smaller than that ofCyprus, and there were nearly eight with a population of just over 1 million.Consequently there was no reason at all why Cyprus, with its own traditions andspeaking its own language, could not be independent. To argue such a questionon the basis of history, although history had its value, was scarcely a profitableapproach, since to do so would open similar considerations in the case of otherex-colonial countries. At one time or another the great majority of member Stateshad been occupied by some other State. India yielded to no one in its respect forfreedom. But the land of Cyprus, with its people, traditions, economic life, andwith the kind of feeling that had developed, could not be disregarded on the basisof the fact that an occupation or an accession had been recognised by one State oranother.

Turning to the question of competence, Mr. Menon observed that the matter couldnot be regarded as purely a domestic question since the United Kingdom

10 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Eleventh Session, First Committee, pages267-68

Government itself had engaged in discussions on Cyprus with Greece and Turkey.However, it was indeed a domestic question in the sense that any practicalconferment of independence and self-government on the people of Cyprusdepended, in present constitutional circumstances, upon the sovereign will of theUnited Kingdom Parliament. It was fortunate that the United KingdomGovernment, and even more the overwhelming majority of the people of theUnited Kingdom, favoured freedom for the Cypriots.

India did not favour - and consequently in previous years had not supported theinclusion of the item in the agenda - self-determination if that were taken to meanthe loss of the personality and the territorial integrity of Cyprus by inclusion inanother land. He hoped he was right in saying that things had advanced and thatthe position at present was not one involving the annexation of Cyprus to oneterritory or another. When the time came, it would be necessary, and to theadvantage of the parties concerned, that there should be assurances by the partiesregarding that territorial integrity. It would be a great pity if, as a result of thecontroversy, the newer fashion were followed and, instead of territories beingdivided and ruled, they were divided and left. Such a fate would be mostunfortunate for Cyprus, with its diverse population not only of Greeks and Turks,but also of Armenians and Arabs.

Recent history did not support the Turkish representative’s claim that Cyprus waspart of the mainland of Turkey. Distance was scarcely the only criterion, and inany case Cyprus was closer to Syria.

There had been recriminations about violence on the one hand and incitement toviolence on the other. There had been a great deal of that sort of trouble in theworld, for example in Malaya for the past ten or fifteen years, where the use offorce had not been able to settle the problem of the desire of the inhabitants forindependence. The use of force had not succeeded either in parts of Asia or ofEurope, and it was not likely to succeed anywhere else.

His Government had no sympathy whatsoever with the intrusion of religion intopolitical agitation. National independence and the affiliation of countries one toanother should not be based merely upon kinship of religion or race, although thatmight be one factor.

India understood the interest of Greece in the problem of Cyprus, since thatinterest corresponded to the Indian one in the question of the people of Indianorigin in the Union of South Africa. He believed that the only way for minoritiesand majorities in a territory to enjoy self-government was to be able to livetogether, and he did not think that the representative of Turkey had said anythingwhich denied that conception.

HIS DELEGATION WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE A SETTLEMENT WHICH

DID NOT take into account all the relevant interests. Indeed, any such"settlement" would not really be a settlement. He therefore submitted a draftresolution A/C.1/L.172, which was based on the premise that the Committee wasin no position to decide on a settlement, although it could deal with generalpolitical principles and could, on the basis of the Charter, try to harmoniseconflicting interests.

In connection with that draft resolution, he observed that it was not possible tocontinue negotiations anywhere in the context of a campaign of hatred. Anatmosphere of peace was required and would be forthcoming if negotiations wereresumed by all parties concerned. Freedom of expression was also necessary, forwithout it there could be no negotiations...

It was unnecessary to go into the question whether Article 2, paragraph 7 applied.But the General Assembly was always competent to express its earnest desire, andthat was what his delegation’s draft resolution would have it do. That draftreferred to a peaceful, democratic and just solution, which meant that minorities,human rights, freedom of expression and the other principles of the Charter couldnot be ignored. What the Assembly had to do was to encourage, and to give animpetus to, the whole process of negotiations. So far as India was aware, theUnited Kingdom had never been unwilling to resume negotiations, nor had theother parties which were involved in one way or another. Although the Cypriotpeople and nation were not present at the Committee, he believed that it should bepossible to find a solution whereby self-government and independence wouldenable the establishment of friendly relations with all the countries concerned.

The Indian delegation could not concede that the reforms proposed by the UnitedKingdom amounted to self-government. It did not believe that there could beself-government when internal order was somebody else’s business. It couldnever concede that the homeland of a people was a strategic point for somebodyelse. It was doubtful whether the strategic considerations that had applied inprevious times were still appropriate.

The Indian draft resolution did not urge or call upon anyone to do anythingbecause there was no desire to infringe in any way on susceptibilities. The greatvalue of the United Nations was often conditioned by the use of its functions inthe context that obtained...

Second Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly on February22, 195711

(Summary)

11 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Eleventh Session, First Committee, page 276

Mr. Krishna Menon said he was gratified at the virtually unanimous approval ofthe draft resolution submitted by his delegation and expressed his appreciation ofthe magnanimity of the sponsors of the other draft resolutions in not pressingthem to a vote. It was important, however, to remember that the draft resolutionadopted did not solve the issue of Cyprus. To think otherwise would be toindulge in political romanticism. What the draft resolution had done was to openthe way to speedier, peaceful and just settlement of the question.

In the view of his Government, the discussion of the question of Cyprus at theGeneral Assembly had brought to the British mind the existence of a Cypriotnationality. He had confidence that the present leaders of the United KingdomGovernment would follow the wisdom of British statesmen who spoke ofconciliation when confronted with similar problems in the past. He had no doubtthat the vast volume of public opinion in the United Kingdom, combined with thewisdom of the Greek Government, which had moved away from the idea that self-determination signified the union of Cyprus with Greece, would promote asolution.

He stressed that his Government had sought to project the position of the Cypriotpeople, and he wanted to say categorically that India recognised a Cypriot nation,irrespective of any question of language. He hoped that through conciliation thelatent sovereignty of the people of Cyprus would become a reality, and that soonan independent Cyprus would take its place in the United Nations.

His delegation had submitted the draft resolution because it had sensed thatbehind all the discussions there was a desire to find a solution throughnegotiations based on national freedom.

The only justifiable interest other parties might have had in the question ofCyprus was that motivated by the desire for the welfare and independence of thepeople of Cyprus. Any other motivation would be contrary to the Charter, whichproclaimed the right of national independence. The Cypriots had been a nation allthrough their history and a nation did not cease to be a nation because it wasconquered. England itself had once been conquered. In conclusion, he said thatthe draft resolution placed the responsibility for finding a solution to the problemof Cyprus on the United Kingdom Government and on the people of Cyprus.

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, December 12,195712

[On February 26, 1957, the General adopted resolution 1013 (XI) calling fornegotiations for a peaceful, democratic and just solution in accordance with the


purposes and principles of the United Nations, but it did not lead to any progresstoward a solution.

At the next session of the Assembly later in 1957, India held extensiveconsultations in the hope of agreement on a draft resolution which wouldcommand wide support in the Assembly; but the efforts were not successful. TheAssembly was unable to adopt any resolution on this matter.]

My delegation has abstained from participating in the debate and in the voting onthis question because, after the laborious efforts made by ourselves and by variousother delegations, it became clear that any decision taken here at the present timewhich did not command the overwhelming majority support of the UnitedNations, not necessarily unanimity, was not likely to fulfil the purposes of theCharter...

The Government of India is neither unconcerned nor insensitive to this matter,and I am asked to state its position. Our position is the same as was stated lastyear: that this is a colonial question. We stand four square by the independence ofthe Cypriot people and their right to be a sovereign State entitled to membershipof the United Nations.

Cyprus has a long though chequered history, and going back 2,000 or 3,000 yearsthis country, which has remained an entity, has been ruled by the Egyptians, bythe Persians, by the Romans and the Byzantians, and afterwards it passed to thedictators, was conquered by the King of England and passed on to KnightsTemplars because he could not administer it, and then it was passed on to theRepublics of Genoa and Venice, and finally came under Turkish rule for 300years. Turkish interests were such that in 1878 it passed on that administration toBritain. Then came the First World War, in which Turkey was on the side of theCentral Powers, and Britain annexed Cyprus.

I will come at a later stage to our view with regard to the interests of other parties.It has been argued that this is not a straightforward colonial question. I would notlike to be cynical and say that colonial questions are never straightforwardbecause colonialism is not straightforward. But there are no colonial questionswhich do not have complications. Cyprus is part, under the British constitutionand the Proclamation of 1951, of Her Majesty’s other realms, the realms beyondthe seas. The legal sovereignty of Cyprus rests in the United Kingdom. Thepolitical sovereignty of Cyprus rests in the Cypriot people. And when the legalsovereignty, which was obtained by annexation, is removed, then the Cypriotpeople - irrespective of their nationality, whether they were of Greek ancestry,Byzantine ancestry, Armenian ancestry or Turkish ancestry - will be members ofwhat would be the Cypriot State when they become an independent nation...

My delegation stated here on the last occasion that we do not consider that this

land and its people should be the subject of a controversy as to who should havethem, the British, the Greeks or the Turks. I think it is time that the Cypriotpeople, after all these years of subjection, came into their own nationhood.Therefore, we stand fully by their independence. We hope that the UnitedKingdom, in the pursuit of its liberal policy which has now become part of thegeneral thinking of the British people, will find its way in the speediest possibletime to resolve this question in a manner which is not now before the Assembly,namely, by enabling the people of Cyprus through peaceful means, as we wouldlike to see it, to attain and to maintain their independence and for their country totake its place around this table as an independent nation...

It is necessary for us, however, to deal with what is called the tripartite claim. Ihope that neither my colleague from Greece nor my colleague from Turkey willtake exception to this, because it is my duty to state our position.

Reference has been made to the Treaty of Lausanne. The reliance is that there issome equilibrium established by the Treaty of Lausanne which confers uponTurkey certain rights. I looked through this Treaty. I found that article 16 states:

"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over orrespecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in thepresent Treaty."

This is not only with regard to Cyprus, but with regard to everything else. Butwhen it comes more specifically to Cyprus, article 20 states:

"Turkey hereby recognises the annexation of Cyprus proclaimed by theBritish Government on 5 November 1914."

It is not even as though Turkey ceded it. The act had already taken place andTurkey, by the solemn Treaty of which she was one of the high contractingparties, agreed to the annexation, recognised the sovereignty of His BritannicMajesty, as he was then, and Cyprus became part of the British Empire.

We go from there to article 21, which concluded this chapter. Article 21 states:

"Turkish nationals ordinarily resident in Cyprus on 5 November, 1914,will acquire British nationality."

So it is not only as though the territory was taken. Nobody was interested inkeeping them Turkish. They acquired British nationality and so forth. Then itgoes on to say that if any Turkish national still remained a Turk, he had to go backto Turkey. We will not go into how many went to Turkey. That is a differentquestion. But they could not remain in Cyprus. If they did, they became underthe law British subjects and they became Cypriots. So much as far as that isconcerned.

In the same way, in order to maintain our objective position, it is necessary for meto state that the parties to this Treaty are the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan,Greece and Romania. Consequently Greece also, by these texts, became a partyto the annexation and the establishment of this separate entity...

Our position is that the main parties in this matter are the peoples of Cyprus whoare entitled to their freedom and the British Government which at present holdspossession and authority over this island.

Finally, I am asked by the Government of India to state that while we were asizeable part of the British Empire, the mightiest we have known in modern times,our independence was established by means which denounced acts of violence oneither side. We therefore do not subscribe to methods which go beyond thenecessities of the ordinary maintenance of law and order or which exercise forcein any way over subject peoples or to methods of terrorism which will neverestablish the independence of a people. For 50 years in our own country therewere groups of people who thought that there was a short cut to freedom. Thereis no short cut except in the organisation of the masses behind the idea of nationalindependence...

Statement in the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly,December 2, 195813

[The question of Cyprus was again brought before the thirteenth session of theGeneral Assembly in 1958 by Greece. Six draft resolutions were submitted duringconsideration of the matter in the First Committee.

India, together with nine other countries, proposed a draft resolution to ask theUnited Kingdom to continue negotiations with the aim of promoting self-government for Cyprus and preserving its integrity. The draft was, however, notpressed to the vote as efforts to formulate a generally acceptable text failed.

When the matter went before the Plenary, a Mexican draft - expressingconfidence that continued efforts would be made by the parties to reach apeaceful, democratic and just solution in accordance with the United NationsCharter - was adopted as resolution 1287 (XIII).]

...This subject has been before us for four years. Indeed, it has been on thepolitical horizon for forty or fifty years or more. I have no desire to go into thechronological history of this position, but it is relevant for us to remind ourselves


of the progress that we have made or, even more, of the different context in whichthis question has come here.

An item on Cyprus was put down by the Greek delegation in 1954. At that time,its inscription was opposed by the United Kingdom. The voting on it was veryclose and my delegation abstained, I believe, on this matter. At any rate, we didnot support the inscription of the item, to the consternation of the ex-colonialcountries...

In 1955, a new factor had emerged. In the statements made by us and the othersin 1954, we were talking about two parties, not the Cypriots and the British,except as far as my delegation and some others were concerned, but the Britishand the Greeks. By 1955, three parties had emerged - the British, the Greeks andthe Turks. Even then, the Cypriot people had not emerged.

Our position in regard to this problem is exactly the same. It is not that we areinflexible in this matter, but in terms of the Charter of the United Nations, interms of the position of people who have neither political, economic nor socialfreedoms, their liberation comes first. We will be the first to agree publicly andprivately that there is much in the record of the United Kingdom in eitherassisting or in yielding to the demands of self-government by subject peoples. Inour own country, there have been periods of conflict and co-operation. Therehave been periods of negotiation. There have also been periods when the rulingauthority has said, "we shall not talk to the rebels."...

We have therefore today the progress of this resolution from 1954 to 1956, andthe session held in 1957, when the United Kingdom agreed to the inscription ofthis item. And if my memory is right I remember my distinguished friendCommander Noble14 telling this house at that time that this problem is not astraightforward colonial question. I am not one to play on words, but I would liketo ask this Committee which colonial question is a straightforward question.Colonialism is not straightforward. We agree it is not straightforward colonialproblem in that sense also. But there are factors involved in it.

But the next part of Commander Noble’s statement is even more significant. Hesaid it is not a straightforward colonial problem because the Greeks hadintroduced the question of enosis15. That is why it is not straightforward colonial.But it has become international.

I think - out of respect for historical facts - that there are at least threedistinguished statesmen, one of them living, two of them no longer with us, whohave a high place in the galaxy of British Prime Ministers - Mr. Gladstone, to startwith; Lloyd George afterwards; and Mr. Winston Churchill, who was Under-Secretary of State for Colonies in 1907 - who, without the Greeks exerting any

14 Allan Noble, representative of the United Kingdom15 Union with Greece

pressure, spoke about this island being united to Greece. Now, we are notadvocates of this union; we are against it. Our position is that Cyprus belongs tothe Cypriot people, and it is their independence as members of the civilised worldthat will contribute to the strength of the United Nations and will fulfil thepurposes of the Charter.

I state these facts to say that union with Greece was part of British policy for avery long time until the nationalist movement developed in Cyprus in 1941. Thenalways, as elsewhere, come reasons for lack of unity...

WE REGARD ENOSIS AS HAVING BEDEVILLED THIS POSITION andhaving postponed the day of Cypriot liberation, having postponed the day ofCypriot nationalism, which is what is being fought against by everybody - and tofight nationalism is to try to reverse the process of history. But it was not a Greekcreation alone; Greece - the Greece of Venizelos, pre-Venizelos Greece or post-Venizelos Greece - was only part of this. But that was a part of British policy.Now, therefore, when we look at that we ought to consider whether there was anytime in Cypriot history any question of its being more than one entity. There wasno time. There is no necessity for us to go far into the past, but from the time ofthe Phoenicians and the Assyrians to the time of Anthony and Cleopatra andafterwards, and to the time of the Crusaders and the Knights Templar and theKings of Jerusalem, Cyprus has been one and entire.

Now let us come to more modern, more recent history, the history of the OttomanEmpire - which, incidentally, appears to seek reincarnation. Turkey was suzerainover Cyprus for 300 years. Did Turkey at that time divide Cyprus in two in orderto protect the Turkish minority against the Greek majority?

And then, though it was part of the Ottoman Empire, somewhere around the endof the nineteenth century the British were called in, not as an act of cession ofCyprus but in order to protect the integrity of Cyprus - and I am not going intoany other details of against whom or what...

Therefore it was Cyprus - not the Turks, not the Greeks, not the various othercommunities - that was handed over. It was this island with an external boundary,with an entity of its own, which was taken over.

From then on there was a period of twenty or thirty years, I believe, where Cypruswas governed by the executive acts of the Crown under Orders-in-Council, that isto say, there was no question of treating this as anything but a private estate. Thatis the position of territories under Orders-in-Council, as Malta was under theKnights Templar in days gone by.

Then came the period of Letters Patent when again under executive orders theirposition was given some legal status in the way of a charter - and I refer my

colleagues of the United Kingdom to the Letters Patent of 1914, 1925, and evenas late as 1931 - where it is definitely laid down that Cyprus is a Crown Colony...Its integrity was constitutionally, politically, factually and every other way, one.Therefore the constitutional position of Cyprus in relation to the British Empire isthat of a Crown Colony, not two colonies.

Again, I have not the time to go into the various attempts at constitutional reformmade in this territory. In each of those the attempt has been to set up some sort ofrepresentative institutions for the whole of the colony. The representative of theCrown for this was the Governor of Cyprus. There was no Governor for theTurks and no Governor for the Greeks separately; the Governor was Governornationwide. There was one common head representing the Crown of the UnitedKingdom in Cyprus.

So unless we go back to the Assyrians or the time of the Phoenicians or the earlydays of the Roman empire, or to the days of conquest in the Middle Ages, or evenafterwards when Cyprus was handed over to Italy at some time, we always findthere was no question of dividing it. We would be the first to say that there arefissiparous factors today, and we cannot just wish them away. But are we tojudge this question merely from what has happened in the last four years or thelast five years or ten years, and ignore the history of 3,000 years?...

I say there is no period in the history of Cyprus when there have been two entitiesin the island. There have been no two Crowns, no two authorities. The troublecame not because there were changes in the body social of Cyprus. There is nopart of Cyprus, from all one can study in available figures and literature, mostlysupplied by the British Government, which is but an exclusive Turkish colony oran exclusive Greek colony. These populations run into one another. Some27,000 Turks live in the urban areas, but the bulk of them are in the rural areas ofCyprus where, out of a rural population of 65,000, 29,999 live in 108 villageswith all-Turkish population; 12,000 live in 38 villages, slightly outnumbering theGreeks; 24,000 live in 150 villages where they constitute a small minority...

So that there is no place where we can draw a line and say, "This is Turks. This isGreeks." Now, if that is so in regard to the general area of Cyprus in its ruralcommunities, the position becomes even more difficult when we take the urbanareas where in the great cities and in the suburbs there are both these populationsin appreciable numbers.

Certainly, we have to take into account small minorities. The Turks and theGreeks are not the only racial or ethnical groups in Cyprus; there are Armenians,there are Arabs and, from a religious point of view, there are various sects. Thenwe are told that there are geographical considerations, and someone has said thatif an island is only a few miles from the coast of a large country and if, on thatisland, there are inhabitants belonging to the large country, then that country musthave something to do with it. I hope that the representative of Ceylon was not

here when that statement was made because I am sure that it would produceunnecessary feelings in his mind. I want to assure him that that is a theory whichshould not have any foundation; that is to say, just because a big country is near asmall country, there is no reason why they cannot live peaceably...

I want to say here that I wish to dissociate myself from all the extreme statementsthat have been made with regard to the nature of rule in Cyprus. All colonial rulemust be, to a certain extent, repressive because, after all, it is the rule of a peopleby another people, the ruled people having no voice in the government, and allcolonial governments have to rely mainly on sanctions. But I do not subscribe tothe theory that there is neither economic, social, nor other progress. A great manythings have happened in Cyprus, good and bad, as in other places, but if thepeople of Cyprus were ruling themselves they would make mistakes - bigmistakes - but those would be their own mistakes; and self-government initially isthe facility to be able to make mistakes and to be able to correct them.

THE JOINING OF CYPRUS WITH GREECE IS NOT self-government orindependence of Cyprus; and, while no one may be dogmatic about it, there isplenty of evidence from reports of recent times and old times that the Cypriotpopulation have got characteristics of their own. Is it not interesting that even theprotagonists of the Turks or the Greeks, when they talk here, say "the TurkishCypriot," "the Greek Cypriot"? Therefore, they are still Cypriots - one might say"the Christian Cypriot" or "the Moslem Cypriot" in the same way.

An Englishman who visited Cyprus and wrote about it in 1879 refers to this fact:

"Except in name, they are neither Turks nor Greeks" - I hope that theCypriots will not be offended - "neither are they an amalgam of these tworaces. From Latakia to Cyrenia, from Paphos to Famagusta, you will seekin vain for any sample of these types. In neither face nor figure, in neitherspeech nor genius, have the Cypriots any resemblance to either Turk orGreek. Who, then, are these Cypriots? Do they stand apart, one of thoseunderived stocks which spring from the soil and have no historyelsewhere? The Cypriots are an amalgamated race, rustics who till thesoil, citizens who occupy towns and ports, men of a sunburned skin but ofan excellent physical type. Yet, they are neither Turk nor Greek except indress or creed. Who and what are they? One fact is clear: they are ofAryan, not semitic stock."

That is of those times. Now we have more modern evidence by a Member ofParliament, who today is not a member of the government but who went toCyprus as Governor, former Commander Fletcher, now Lord Winster. He said:

"In my time, racial animosities simply did not exist: the two races livedand worked side by side in every department of the administration, in the

forests, in the health service; the children of the two races played together;racial animosity was unknown. A new and such an ugly development hasbeen the rapid and shocking deterioration in racial relations."

Then he goes on to deal with the plan, which I shall deal with later on.

Today, in the armed services, in industry - I do not say the industry of the owningside because this must be, to a large extent, imported capital - there are labourorganisations and trade unions composed of Greeks and Turks. The largest ofthem is the Cypriot Federation of Labour, which has the largest membership, amixed membership of Turks and Greeks almost in proportion to the population.Then there are exclusively Turkish unions which are very small. Therefore, inthese labour organisations, in co-operative societies, which the BritishGovernment has promoted with some success in the area, the Cypriots, Greeksand everyone else remain as common citizens of this place.

This takes us to the position of Turkey, both juridically and politically, in regardto Cyprus. While we are not military allies of the Turks, we are part of Asia. TheTurkish Government was represented at the Bandung Conference and supportedcolonial liberation. It is a country with which we have many ties, whose pasthistory differs from ours, but which, I hope, may provide in the futureopportunities of treading a common path in many directions.

The Turks were in Cyprus as Cyprus was in the possession of the OttomanEmpire, and, as I said, they handed it over to the British for looking after. WhenTurkey had Cyprus - and I say this without any disrespect to modern Turkey - itwas not in a position to offer protection. But that is past history. But in 1914,after the declaration of the First World War, the United Kingdom rightly foundthat it could not administer Cyprus on behalf of an enemy Power.

Since Turkey had joined the Central Powers and Cyprus was still held in somesort of stewardship by the United Kingdom, a new situation arose. Then beganthe straightforward colonial era, when the United Kingdom, annexed Cyprus.

Under British rule, Cyprus prospered very much more than under Turkish rule.The deforested areas became more afforested. But certain political actions tookplace at that time. One was Turkey’s abdication, under the Treaty of Lausanne, ofall rights to Cyprus. The second was even more important. The United Kingdomsaid that if the people of Turkish origin in Cyprus wanted to be Turks they musttake Turkish nationality and leave Cyprus; that if they remained in Cyprus theywould have United Kingdom nationality. So far as I know, at the present time allCypriots - whether Greeks or Turks - have British passports; they have UnitedKingdom nationality; they have all the advantages of Commonwealth and Empirecitizenship. There is, therefore, no question of Turkey’s having left any vestige ofsovereignty behind.

WE AS A GOVERNMENT ACCEPT THE POSITION that the United Kingdomis sovereign in Cyprus, in the sense that it has legal sovereignty. The UnitedKingdom has the power to give commands; it has the administrative responsibilityfor the Island. That is why, from 1954 onwards, we have been saying that this is amatter between the people and the Government: it is a colonial question.

But if the United Kingdom Government has legal sovereignty, the fact is that inall colonial countries the sovereignty really lies in the people. It is latentsovereignty, which becomes active when the colonial Power is removed or partlyrecedes. It is the transfer of this sovereign power from the ruling country to thepeople, to whom it really belongs, which represents the establishment of freedom.This may take place in gradual stages; it may take place suddenly; it may takeplace by revolution or by peaceful negotiation.

We therefore recognise that the power to do good is in the hands of the UnitedKingdom Government. The responsibility of bringing the Cypriot people to thefullness of their nationhood through the enjoyment of statehood is also a Britishresponsibility and a British function, in the sense that the United Nations Charterenjoins upon all the members of the Organisation to bring non-self-governingcommunities to self-government or independence, according to the localconditions. This sovereignty cannot be shared with anyone. It can be transferred,or it can become lower in the administrative Power as it becomes higher in thepeople.

The United Kingdom representative has told this Committee something which hasa double significance. On the one hand, it shows the United Kingdom’s anxietyto find a solution to this problem. It shows that the United Kingdom is flexible inthis matter. But flexibility by itself may not always be the correct solution. It alldepends on the direction and the purpose of the flexibility. The United Kingdomhas said that it is willing to share sovereignty, that it is willing to enter into apartnership. But that sovereignty is to be shared, on the one hand, with the pastrulers of Cyprus, the successors to the Ottoman Empire, and, on the other hand,with a country which, owing to racial ties, has held the position in the past -apparently this is not the Greek position today, from what has been said in thisCommittee - that this territory should be amalgamated with its own, that thereshould be an Anschluss of this territory with its own.

It would seem that if there is any willingness to surrender or share thissovereignty, it should be surrendered to or shared with the people to whom itlegitimately belongs. Even if it is argued that the sovereignty would be sharednot only with Turkey and Greece, but also with the Cypriot people, it is legitimateto ask whether bringing in these two sovereign nations, far more powerful thanCyprus is or will be, would not in itself make the independence of Cyprus still-born. That is to say, it is legitimate to ask this question: If, as a result of thepresent plan or any other plan, Cyprus were to become more independent, if its

self-government were fully promoted and, afterwards, it became entitled tomembership of the United Nations, would not other people, other countries, withgreater military and economic and other powers, have been introduced into thegovernment of Cyprus?

The United Kingdom representative has said that the two basic principles ofBritish policy are: first, the elimination of violence, the restoration of a peacefulatmosphere; and, secondly, partnership.

On the first of those propositions, my delegation not only is in completeagreement, but will be ardent advocates. No settlement in Cyprus can beachieved unless there is a cessation of violence from all sides - irregular as well asregular violence. There are 37,000 British troops on Cyprus. It is not withoutsignificance that in this little island of 400,000-odd people, there are - accordingto statistics submitted by the United Kingdom Government to the Committee onNon-Self Governing Territories - 46,000 cases of crime, and the majority of thesecrimes are in regard to offences against law and order and not in regard to moralturpitude. In other words, because of the present political situation there arecrimes involving ten per cent of the population of Cyprus. That means that thesituation is not peaceful, and we agree that everything should be done to bringabout peaceful conditions.

From our own experience, we know this: Even when a struggle for nationalliberation is conducted on the basis of peace, if an act of violence takes place,either because of lack of discipline or because of an inability to stand up to undueprovocation, it is not the party with the upper hand that suffers: it is the fellowwho is struggling for freedom. From our own experience, we know that everytime a railway coach was burned, or a policeman was hit, or a greater tragedytook place, it pushed back the force of our national movement for a certain period.For the greatest strength that a subdued people has is the strength to be able to sayno to the conqueror, rather than to use the conqueror’s own weapons.

I want the representatives of the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece to believethat the draft resolution which we and some other members of the Committeehave submitted is put forward with a desire to see that negotiations emerge andthat peaceful conditions are restored. We want conditions to prevail in which thegoverning authorities will do everything they can to halt the assertion of authorityby force alone. On the other hand, we want conditions to prevail in which thepopulation and their leaders, the national movement that is struggling for liberty,will recognise that, while violence may be provoked and even be justified in somecases from an individual point of view, it does not as a national policy paydividends or advance the cause of freedom.

We know both from our own experience and as a common-sense proposition, andfrom humanitarian considerations, that violence does not pay and does not alwaysstrike the persons whom it is intended to strike. It brings opprobrium on all

parties concerned. Here we are one with the United Kingdom policy. We hope,and we have no doubt in view of the state of public opinion in the UnitedKingdom and the general policy of the United Kingdom Government, that anattempt will be made to slow down the progress of violence.

WE NOW TURN TO THE OTHER ASPECT: PARTNERSHIP. I have alreadysaid that, from the statements made here, it appears that the United KingdomGovernment is willing to have a partnership with Greece and Turkey. Before Iexamine that problem, I should like to say something of which I would ask theUnited Kingdom representative to take serious note. Speaking before thisCommittee, the United Kingdom representative said - and this affects us veryseriously:

"This idea of partnership is one of which the British people have goodreason to be proud."

We do not take exception to that.

"Partnership has proved its worth in the development of theCommonwealth as a great association of free and independent nations. Itis an idea which accords well with that belief in co-operation and mutualrespect which is the hallmark of a civilised and liberal diplomacy."

Now, if those sentences stood alone and were not brought into the Cyprus debate,where a colonial issue is involved and where two sovereign countries are beingimported from outside, we would take no exception to them. We are anindependent member of the Commonwealth, having an equal position ofsovereignty with the United Kingdom. We are a sister State; we are not asubordinate State. There is nothing in our relationship which involves apartnership with anyone outside. That is to say, our partnership in theCommonwealth does not impose upon us any partnership with anyone else, anymilitary alliance, or anything of that character.

I submit that this parallel that is drawn is something that rather complicates us andmakes difficulties with regard to our own public opinion. Partnership in theCommonwealth is a partnership of sister States who are enjoying independence,and this partnership arises from our free will. And here, while I have no desire tointroduce extraneous matter, the matter ceases to be extraneous when it is a matterthat is introduced by somebody else. In 1949, India, which has been a self-governing dominion under the Statute of Westminster and its developmentsafterwards, decided under her constitution to be an independent republic, with thesovereignty derived from its people. But, for historic reasons, for sentimentalreasons, and partly in the hope that the union of free territories, without any bondsfrom one to the other, would serve, to the small extent that it could, as an exampleof co-operation in the world, in common with the other eight partners, it decided

to come to a new agreement. At that time there was no pressure on theGovernment of India. There was no initiative from the Government of the UnitedKingdom or any of the older Commonwealth countries, and we said, and it wascommunicated, that we were going to become a republic. At the same time Indiahad declared and affirmed its desire to continue its full membership in theCommonwealth of Nations with its acceptance of the King as a symbol of thatfree association of these independent member nations and, as such, the head of theCommonwealth.

The last paragraph of this communiqué16 says:

"Accordingly, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon hereby declare that they remainunited as free and equal members of the Commonwealth of Nations freelyco-operating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress." (Text of theCommuniqué, London, April 28, 1949)

That is what we are trying to do: freely co-operating in the pursuit of liberty andpeace...

The representative of the United Kingdom, on the other hand, speaks of thearrangements as an experiment in ‘partnership.’ He has spoken in eloquent andmoving terms of the virtues of partnership, and we agree with all his generalremarks on this theme. We agree with him particularly when he says:

"Partnership has proved its worth in the development of theCommonwealth as a great association of free and independent nations."

That is perfectly true, and entirely to the credit of the United Kingdom and itspartners in the Commonwealth. But it is not what is involved here. There is noquestion in this partnership of freedom or independence, let alone nationhood, forCyprus.

I raise this point for two reasons: we do not want our people or the people in theworld - as is common knowledge, very few people except the members of theCommonwealth understand what the Commonwealth is or what the relation is -and therefore we do not want any confusion or any doubts thrown upon the freecharacter of this association. We regard it as entirely inappropriate to describe aproposed sharing of imperial power between Greece and Turkey and the UnitedKingdom as analogous to the Commonwealth of Nations. In fact, it is totally theopposite.

What would happen in this case? These two sovereign countries, who haveeconomic power, who have their own legislatures, their own sovereignauthorities, their own constitutions, would be brought into the Government of the

16 Communiqué issued by the Commonwealth in London, April 28, 1949

colony in one way or another and, it is said, for international reasons.

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking in 1957, said that it hasbecome an international problem on account of the great demand for enosis. Asthe Committee well knows, my delegation has always stood four-square on thequestion of nationhood for Cyprus; and in spite of the fact that oppositionmembers of the Greek Parliament or anywhere else will deny it, the fact stillremains that the Cypriot people are Cypriots. They are a nation. They seekstatehood. They seek the facility to develop themselves, to develop their ownresources, to play their part in the community of the world, which is all beingretarded by the violence, by the diversion of energies in the struggle... We do notregard this partnership between three possible potential imperial Powers if theytake part in it - and I hope neither Greece nor Turkey will take exception to it -because the relation of Britain to Cyprus is that of the empire to subject peoples,and the Cypriot people’s relation to Britain is that of people seeking liberationunder a liberal imperial system...

So that this idea of partnership, while it is a very nice word, in our opinion doesnot fit in with the situation. What really is proposed is that the partnership shouldbe one that helps to thwart the growth of nationalism, and to prevent and come inthe way of the flowering of national aspirations into full nationhood.

IT WAS NOT OUR INTENTION TO DISCUSS THE BRITISH PLAN forCyprus, because we do not believe that in the General Assembly it is possible toevolve a plan for self-government or a constitution, nor is it its function. Wethink it is the function of the Cypriot people in co-operation with the BritishGovernment or vice versa, but that co-operation is essential. Therefore, it was notour intention to discuss the British plan at all, but the representative of the UnitedKingdom has taken us into confidence, and the published papers on it have beenbrought into the debate, and, therefore, we have, to a certain extent, to deal withit.

In this plan, if it comes into operation, it could not come into operation withouttwo things. First of all, the Turks and the Greeks must elect people, must co-operate with the idea of an assembly, a legislature, and if they do not do that, thenthe plan drops like a ton of lead. Then, when you take the upper echelon, theGovernor has got a council, that is the supreme body; and in that he is to beassisted, in some form, not by the Turks and the Greeks in Cyprus, but by theTurkish and Greek Governments, which are foreign Governments at the presenttime. The Turkish and Greek Governments are to share the power of the Crown.There again, unless these two independent nations desire to be partners in thisventure, that part also does not come in.

While the plan may be one of partnership, there is no evidence that thispartnership was previously negotiated or that the parties had agreed to it. And if

it is proposed that any plan or solution is to be made without the consent of thepeople who are to be partners, then in so far as they are concerned, it could be aplan which is put to them as "take it or leave it" without seeking their consent.Sometimes people are put on committees without being asked to join them, andthe very fact that people are elected to them does not mean that a partnership hasbeen consented to.

That is not the only feature. According to the representative of the UnitedKingdom, in the course of events, this plan is to come gradually into being. Thatsounds very good. But if you introduce the two communal legislatures andafterwards expect the Governor to co-ordinate them, then you have alreadycrystallised these divisions. In fact, as Lord Winster has said somewhere in adebate on this, this is not partnership but segregation. He said, "In all that I did, Iaimed at integration." This plan seems to aim at segregation, and there arereferences to other places, where segregation takes place, which are irrelevant tothe purpose of our debate.

Referring to this - and this is the principal speech on behalf of the opposition inthe House of Lords - Lord Winster said:

"What is proposed may, I fear, bring Athens and Ankara into the affairs ofCyprus. I want a united Cyprus to run its own affairs.

"My Lords, how far is this ‘communal autonomy’ to run? To what lengthswill it go? Are we to find two fire brigades in a town, one Turkish andone Greek, and the Greek fire brigade not going to a Turkish fire and theTurkish fire brigade staying at home when there is a Greek fire?...

"All these things mean that the island will be administered not as a unitfrom within but by men who will be looking East and West across the seafor their instructions and guidance...

"From my own experience in Cyprus, I feel certain that the chances of theacceptance of this plan will be greatly enhanced if the future procedure isclearly laid down. I feel sure that those concerned will want to know whatis to happen at the end of these seven years..."

We have another statement from one who usually does not come in the way ofsomething being tried out, and that is the veteran Prime Minister of England, LordAttlee, who had a great deal to do with the emergence of India as an independentcountry. He said:

"...I would say only this one word of warning: it is rather a dangerousprecedent to have governments from outside brought in because of theirco-religionist or may be their nationalist influences. There are manyplaces in the world which are inhabited by natives of different countries,

and if they were all to ponder about it they might ask for a finger in thepie, and it would be extremely awkward."

Then there is a reference to India which I will not read out.

Therefore, this plan would really introduce a kind of tripartite imperialism intoCyprus. And if either the Turks or the Greeks, or we as a United Nations, caredfor the freedom of the Cypriot people, we would regard that as a retrograde step.Therefore, we suggest that this is not partnership. It has been argued - and weaccept in all good faith the sincere professions of the British Government - thatthey do not aim at partition. It is not a question of what we aim at as policy, butwhen we build institutions which are bound to compartmentalise ambition, whichare bound to compartmentalise social objectives, then you get a divided nation. Itis possible to divide any nation that is united by the creation of separate interests,with the best of motives in the world.

In Cypriot politics there always is an element of religious leadership because ofthe position of the national movement. Therefore, I think it is appropriate toquote here what the Archbishop of Canterbury has to say about this. Incidentally,he is also not entirely a religious person only, because he is a member of theHouse of Lords, a member of Parliament. He said:

"...I believe that partition in Cyprus would be the sign of final and totalfailure to find a solution: it would be a counsel of despair."

Then we have a former Colonial Under-Secretary, Lord Lloyd, who said:

"...Partition is never a very satisfactory solution, politically oreconomically. It is particularly unsatisfactory in a small island likeCyprus, which is only just viable even as things stand at present. Partitionof Cyprus would present much greater problems than the partition ofIreland. In Ireland, there was the homogeneous Protestant community inthe north, whereas in Cyprus the Turkish community is spread out evenlyover the whole island; so that in the event of partition, transfer ofpopulation would be inevitable."

We have some disastrous experiences of transfer of populations - "transfer" is aeuphemistic word - of the exodus of populations, millions of them, as a result ofthe disastrous policies pursued in the past which resulted in partition. I am free tosay that partition may become inevitable in certain circumstances, but it would bewise statesmanship not to lay the foundations of the edifice which can only besustained on the basis of partition. Therefore, we make no apologies for sayingthat my country and my Government, for such influence as it may have, as part ofits duties, would unequivocally say that any plan which leads to the dissection ofthis island, any plan that thwarts the national growth of these peoples, is a planthat is retrograde. It is not likely to lead to peaceful settlements but to unpeaceful

ones, for essentially this requires the co-operation of the Greek and Turkishcommunities so-called.

If one can get the Greek and the Turkish communities to agree to remain in thisway, equally they could agree to come together. If it is based upon agreement,why can that agreement not be used for other purposes?

REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE RADCLIFFE REPORT17

References has been made to the Radcliffe Report and the representative of theUnited Kingdom has said that this report or this proposal was a good one, that itshould have been accepted; the Greeks are sorry that they did not encourageacceptance of it. All these are facts or opinions which do not affect the factualfindings of that distinguished jurist. One may not agree with the politicalconclusions of a judge or of a distinguished lawyer, but one can always place agreat deal of reliance on his analysis of facts. This is what Radcliffe said in hisreport:

"The people of Cyprus, I have reminded myself, are an adult peopleenjoying long cultural traditions and an established educational system,fully capable of furnishing qualified administrators, lawyers, doctors, andmen of business. It is a curiosity of their history that their politicaldevelopment has remained comparatively immature. It is owed, I think, toa people so placed that, when they are invited to assume politicalresponsibility, the offer should be generous in the sense that, within thefield offered, no qualification or restriction should be imposed that is nothonestly required by the conditions of the problem."

My delegation has purposely refrained from entering the strategic arguments thathave been brought into this question. It makes no difference to us whether theGreeks and the Turks and the British and everybody else agreed with regard tostrategy or otherwise, but we would say that the primary consideration in thismatter is what Mr. Noble has said: the welfare and the interest of the people ofCyprus. They are the principal factors in this matter, and in the British traditionparticularly as it has developed within the last ten or fifteen years, and accordingto the Charter of the United Nations as set out in Article 73, these non-self-governing countries are maintained in trust - not legally but morally maintained intrust - and the great day of fulfilment is when they take it over.

According to the Radcliffe Report as regards Cyprus today:

"...Not all education is special to its own community...There are mixedvillages shared by Greek and Turk. Many Turks speak Greek as well asTurkish, and the English language is a potential instrument of common

17 In 1957, at the request of the United Kingdom Government, Lord Radcliffe prepared a draftconstitution for Cyprus. It did not find acceptance.

understanding."

Then again, he goes on to say:

"I am conscious that I do not know enough about the problem. Theirrepresentatives have worked together in the past in the service of theGovernment, in municipal administration, in the activities of co-operativesocieties and of district improvement boards...

"There is no pattern of territorial separation between the two communitiesand, apart from other objections, federation of communities which doesnot involve also federation of territories seems to me a very difficultconstitutional form..."

It is analogous to a theocratic state which is out of date in a modern civilisation.He then goes on to say:

"I do not think that it will be advantageous to embroil the Governor in theinternal controversies of the self-governing side..."

Therefore, whichever way we look at it, whether we look at viability, whether welook at harmony - whether we look at what the representative of Morocco spokeabout a while ago, that Cyprus, instead of being a point of conflict, a point oftrouble between Turkey and Greece, would become a place where, on account oftheir spiritual, racial and other interests, they would find a field of co-operation -this would go completely against that.

I would also like to pose a question. Let us assume for a moment, for argument’ssake - and only for argument - that Cyprus was so partitioned, either obviouslypartitioned, by putting a political saw across, or where institutions were createdwith each community, as was said by Lord Winster, looking across the seas forsupport, what would be the position? The conflicts, the measuring of strengthbetween the two communities, would not depend either on the numerical positioninside the island, or on the economic position, or the strength of fist, but woulddirectly involve Greece and Turkey. The two parts, A and B, would, each one, bethe beachhead for the country with which that community is said to be affiliated.

So instead of promoting peace in the Eastern Mediterranean, as it is called,instead of seeing what we have been constantly told are friends and allies workingtogether, it would not be a bone of contention because it is already there. But itwould harden the positions, it would lay the very sure foundations of a conflictwhere Greece and Turkey would stand ranged on the island of Cyprus ostensiblyprotecting their protégés, but with all the other troubles, whether it be Macedoniaor Thrace or anything else, added to it.

From the international point of view to which Mr. Noble has made repeated

references, this solution, which is not what is sought by the United KingdomGovernment, though they say they do not rule it out now, is not a solution whichwill lead to peace and harmony or to the fulfilment of the purposes of the UnitedNations. We recognise that after many years of colonial rule, after there has beenviolence and bloodshed, after there has been repression, after there has been allthose factors that take place when there is a conflict of a ruling power and anationalist movement, it may not be easy to build a bridge from one State to theother. That perhaps would take time or perhaps would take a degree ofgradualism. But that does not mean that the objectives can be changed.

We in the United Nations, apart from our own national positions, must begoverned by the principles of the Charter, and those principles accord to thepeoples in non-self-governing territories the capacity to become self-governing.

My delegation has consistently declined to give its support to resolutions, whetherthey came from the Greeks or from any one else, to self-determination, so-called,in regard to Cyprus. It is not because we do not subscribe to the principles of theCharter, but there can only be self-determination when we have determined whatthe "self" is. Self-determination must follow self-government as the veryjustification of keeping anybody under colonial rule is that they are not fit to rule.If they are not fit to rule, how can they make decisions about ruling? Therefore,self-determination, as the Right Honourable Aneurin Bevan18 pointed out in theHouse of Commons the other day, must always follow self-government. Selfmust determine itself, and also we cannot use this idea of self-determination tothwart national ambitions and national fulfilment in various ways.

With regard to dealing with colonial questions, the Empire, in the past underconditions rather different and in modern times, has followed different policies. Itis commonly said that on the continent of Africa there is the Lugard tradition, thatthere is some other tradition between the West and the East. It is commonly saidthat if we are going to get anywhere we should rather follow the direction pointedout by Lord Durham rather than Lord North. In Cyprus in this particular matter,this kind of thing would have to be imposed upon the people because there is noevidence that the people have either consented or that they have been consulted.It has been stated in these debates that flexibility would call for a conferencebetween the Greeks and the Turks and the British as being so-called "concerned"Powers - it is easy to concern oneself in other people’s affairs - plus two otherNATO countries which are not concerned. Then it goes on to say that therepresentatives of the Cypriot parties may also attend. They sit on the doorstep.The people who are most concerned sit on the doorstep attending, while the otherpeople participate.

In all this, it is well to remind ourselves of the only resolution that stands validtoday of the United Nations, resolution 1013 of the eleventh General Assembly.This resolution states in its operative part:

18 A leader of the Labour Party and member of British Parliament

"Expresses the earnest desire that a peaceful, democratic and just solutionwill be found in accord with... the Charter of the United Nations."

Can it be said that in two years there has been a more peaceful approach to thisproblem? Certainly there has been no democratic approach to this problem.

My delegation is not competent to say what is a just solution because that must beproved by events... Consent is of the essence of the democratic process, andthere has been no evidence of consent...

WE DO NOT SAY THAT THERE ARE NO DIFFICULTIES. We do not saythat more difficulties have not been created in the last two years or that they havenot come into being. But it is always a dangerous precedent in these matters tosow the wind because the whirlwind is the result. If separatist tendencies areeither glorified or welcomed, then those separatist tendencies will becomethemselves the obstacles to progress.

What I have said may perhaps give the impression that one only looks at one sideof the picture. There has been progress in the sense that the overwhelmingopinion in the United Kingdom is in favour of a peaceful and democraticsettlement in Cyprus which will enable it to take its place in the comity of nations.There is no doubt that whatever may be the defects of the plan itself, the plan is anattempt, with which we do not agree perhaps, to find a solution which involvessacrifice of authority by the United Kingdom Government.

The very fact that the United Kingdom is having it discussed here is also a changeof attitude in the sense of either seeking the co-operation of the United Nations ornot wanting to conceal any facts in this matter. All these are items of progress. Ibelieve that the statement made by British authorities that they would haveconversations with various leaders of the Cypriot movement is also a stepforward. But it is not a step forward to have five independent nationsparticipating in a conference at which the main people concerned may not attend.The decision must come about by co-operation and by peaceful negotiation withthe Cypriot people, who are the main parties and to whom power must be handedover.

The representative of the United Kingdom said in 1957 that the main difficulty inthis matter was enosis; that is to say, the fear that freedom would mean the loss ofliberty to the island in another way. In his statement, Mr. Averoff Tossizza, therepresentative of Greece, said:

"Greece has never fostered expansionist designs on Cyprus. It does not setits ambitions on the level of territorial expansion, which, in our time, is anoutmoded political concept of domination. What Greece has always

desired has been the liberation of the Cypriot" - I do not subscribe to allthese words - "from the chains of an assertive colonialism which they havefor so long been struggling to break."

The significance of this passage is that whatever may have been the position inthe past, today both the Cypriot national leaders as well as the Greeks lookforward to the development of self-government and independence, of statehoodand nationhood. I am not prepared to say that this was the policy in the past. Butwe have been told that it was the policy of enosis which stood in the way. Wewelcome the development of this national consciousness in Cyprus. I feel surethat as a result of our deliberations here, if the United Nations were to give somesense of faith and some sense of feeling of a desire to go forward, peacefulnegotiations will lead somewhere, to the flowering of the fullness of nationhoodat the appropriate time in Cyprus; that would be the strongest factor in attenuatingthe process of violence. Then it would be possible for us to appeal to the Cypriotpeople and the world would look to the Cypriot people to take the gun out ofpolitics. The world would equally look to the United Kingdom to follow a policyof pacification, whereby violence would not ensue. The path of progress,therefore, would lie in seeking, in the terms of the United Nations Charter, thepromotion of self-government without in any way jeopardising the integrity ofCyprus.

For 3,000 years this island has remained one and entire. There has been noTurkish Cyprus, there has been no Greek Cyprus, there has been no AssyrianCyprus. Whether the Greeks accept it or not, whether the Turks accept it or not, ithas a distinct personality. And some of us are not unfamiliar with Cypriots orwith their life or their speech or their looks. Therefore, if nationality is notsomething that springs from the beginning of time, it is a social process and thatprocess can be either obstructed or forwarded.

The path of peace, the objectives of the Charter, and the solution of this problem,either now or in the far future, depend upon the acceptance of these ideas andseeking for ways of peaceful settlement...

DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCETO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, December 13,196019

[In 1960, the General Assembly considered an item entitled "Declaration on theGranting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" at the request ofthe USSR which presented a draft for the declaration. Asian-African countrieswelcomed the Soviet initiative and formulated their own draft which wassponsored by 43 countries.

On December 14, 1960, the Assembly adopted the Asian-African draft by 89 votesto none, with 9 abstentions. By this Declaration - resolution 1514 (XV) - theAssembly solemnly proclaimed "the necessity of bringing to a speedy andunconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations."

The following is the statement by Mr. Menon during the discussion of this item.]

We are now coming very near to the end of a great debate which has taken severaldays of the working time of this Assembly, over fifty speaking hours, and inwhich some seventy speakers have participated. It is easy to say that words donot have a real effect, but the very fact that the Assembly, in the seriousness of itsbusiness has devoted its time to this item, and that a number of nations haveparticipated in the debate - both those who have been here for a long time andthose others who have joined, on whom the impact of the subject which we arediscussing is more recent than on some of the others - is eloquent in itself. Itshould not be forgotten, however, that some of the more powerful nations oftoday who are here have also gone through the phase of being under colonial rule,and it is much to their credit and the advantage of the world as a whole that theystill have memories of it and of their effort to throw it off, and are aware of itsimpact upon the history of the world.

The subject comes before us this time, thanks to the initiative of the Soviet Union,in the shape of an item on the agenda; but it is by no means a new matter to theUnited Nations, being written into the Charter. I will not read those words andclauses, which are so familiar to everyone. Not only is it written into the Charter,but a Chapter of the Charter deals with this problem of Non-Self-GoverningTerritories, though perhaps in 1960 not as adequately in the present circumstancesof the world, as may have appeared in 1945.

Again that reminds us that even the Charter, good as it is, is not like the proverbiallaw of the Medes and the Persians, unalterable, but has to be vivified, has to be

19 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifteenth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages1238-45

made more useful, by being responsive to the developing conditions of the world.

Colonialism, as it is called, the expansion of countries outside their borders,usually into far-off lands, resulting either in conquest or occupation, and what iscalled government from a distance - that is what it used to be called in thenineteenth century - is no new phenomenon, so far as we are concerned. I do notwant to go into all the ancient history of this. It goes back perhaps to the earlystages of the pre-Christian era, when Alexander the Great embarked upon hisexpeditions right to the frontiers of our own country, where he won his battle, butfrom where he returned without establishing an empire there. And then we hadthe whole period of the development of Europe, where they were concerned withtheir own internal troubles, European nations either coalescing with each other orthrowing the yoke of one on the other, so that the present colonial lands of Asiaand Africa did not attract their attention for a long time except in connection withtrade.

Now we come to the more important period of today. I say this because weshould not think that suddenly, with the industrial civilisation, a new ideadeveloped in the mind of man, because then we are likely to think that we shouldnot have to guard against these evils in the future. So in more recent times therehas been expansion. This expansion took place partly as a result of exploration,partly in an attempt to gain riches, partly in order to provide for migration, and fordozens of causes - through the merchant; the explorer; the promoter ofenterprises; the missionary; the political leaders of some countries; the advancingmight of armies; more and more in recent years, particularly since the industrialrevolution, the engineer; and also sometimes the very nationalistic, patrioticexpansionist who saw in the conquest of other territories the glory of his own. Allthis is depicted by - I will not call it the newer surge of nationalism.

I WANT TO SAY A WORD ABOUT THIS CONCEPTION OFNATIONALISM, because it is at once the cause, the soul of empire and themainspring of the resistance to it. After all, colonialism, as we understand it, isthe attempt to expand power from one’s own territory into another area. Europeparticularly, having gone through the phase somewhere about the sixteenthcentury, or perhaps a little earlier, of having evolved into nations from small tribalStates, found in that unification the possibility of greater unity. Now, as then, itwas often coloured by idealism: either it could be talked about in the shape ofpan-Christian ideas or the spreading of some universal doctrines, or the spread ofthe gospel, or whatever it may be. In fact, you will find that in the expansion ofall these areas the source of authority has come from charters or other instrumentsgranted to explorers which give the sovereign power of life and death over non-Christian peoples. It appears in the clauses of the charter of the East IndiaCompany in regard to India, in which Queen Elizabeth gave these merchants, whowere private citizens in her kingdom at that time, sovereign rights of life anddeath over non-Christian people. That is how her empire began. But it is a great

mistake to think that one motive or another can explain this.

And so we go through various phases where people explore everywhere in searchof wealth and do not find it, or as in the case of Columbus, they stumble bymistake upon another land of vast riches, and so on. Skipping over this periodfrom the early times of the explorers, or the Phoenician period, we hear of thediscoveries that gave America its name by the Italian explorer, as it is said - I donot vouch for this. Afterwards there came the expansion to the four greatterritories of Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and the American continent, resulting inwhat today - or yesterday, I should say - what yesterday was the situation, where asmall number of people in each of these metropolitan countries ruled a veryconsiderable number of people in other areas. But fortunately this phenomenon,with the exception of one or two countries, or one or two combinations, is on theway out.

If I may submit without being misunderstood, one of the most potent hindrances,one of the greatest impediments in the way of progress, is not to recognise thatprogress is being made, because if we do not recognise that progress is beingmade, we are likely to apply the same remedies, have the same reactions to thechanged conditions as to the previous conditions and thereby get all ourorientation and our policies misrepresented, misunderstood and misapplied.Similarly, if we do not recognise that progress is being made, it is very likely thatthose who have been pressured into progress either by the agitations of colonialpeoples or by liberal sentiments in their own countries will be encouraged to fallback and say to their own peoples, "We told you so." Therefore, we have torecognise that some progress has been made.

IN MODERN TIMES, SINCE THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, theEuropean peoples, not knowing how to preserve their meat, had to resort tospices, and it was about that time that they learned the art of cooking properly. Atthe time when Constantinople went out of the Christian ambit as such, the searoutes became open and then all the European population, led by the Portugueseand the Spaniards, followed by the Dutch and the French, and the English last,came into all these areas. They spread out into the new world in America, theyspread out into Asia, and later on, in some cases they spread out into Africa.

At first this exploration was carried out by people with a real desire to travel tothese lands, the great sea dogs of the time, people who just wanted to explore forthe sake of exploration. But these exploration enterprises remind us of some ofour modern sports tournaments; that is to say, some person who wants to establishhimself in a very big way in some sport and wants to play in tournaments abroadgets promoted by the manufacturer of some commodity used in that sport. In thesame way, behind the explorer gathered those interests who could gain by hisexplorations; thus economic interests got tied up with the pioneering spirit. Butagain, we must not forget that the great urge was nationalism, that it was the birth

of nationalism in the European nation States, pride in a flag, rivalry with othernations, the fear that other nations may establish themselves in areas to thedisadvantage of themselves, that pushed people forward time after time.

First we have the phase - and when we speak about phases we have to look forclear-cut, sharp lines of division - first we have the phase of the empires ofsettlement. Those empires of settlement may have arisen either as a result of adeliberate policy of sending people out or because - I will not mention names - insome cases of great imperial countries they used these far-away places to deportpersonalities whose liberal ideas were not acceptable at home; therefore theconvict settlements as they were called at that time, were composed of miscreantsand anti-social people, as we would call them now. But they were probably thepioneers of revolutions, those who rebelled against the old order at home, so theywere sent abroad to the colonies of settlement. In those areas the indigenouspopulations by and large became extinct and the settlements became practicallypatches of the old country in a new area. They were the colonies of settlementwhich are now full-fledged nations, and they have in various ways contributedboth to progress and to regress in regard to this colonial system.

Then we come to the period from the beginning of the third phase, from thenineteenth century onward, when, as a result of the second industrial revolutionand the growth of technology, and through mercantile expansion, the search formarkets and raw materials began. Machines produced large quantities of goods.Sweated labour was available in the home country for some time. However, thatsource did not last because the people who were drawn from the rural part of thecountryside into the towns in countries like the United Kingdom, for example,saw the attractions of industry and a way to live better, and so they began to putpressure on those who owned the machines because they wanted higher wages.

However, there was overseas a source of this underpaid labour and there was noparticular difficulty in obtaining labourers. Most of these territories were notdemocratic. Public opinion of course always exists but agreements were reachedwith individual rulers which were to the advantage of the colonising nations.

So we have a period where raw materials were produced by sweat-shop labourand where there were vast markets of underpaid people whose purchasing powerwas small but who made up for it by their numbers. Thus you have an empirewhich, it is generally argued, is an empire of profit. That was so in the old days,because it is most unlikely that most of these colonising expeditions would havetaken place if there had been no profit involved and thus no incentive.

THEN CAME THE BREAK WITH IMPERIALISM, IN WHICH THERE HAVEBEEN MANY PIONEERS from distant times up to more modern times. The firstbreak with imperialism was when some of the colonies revolted and in other casesthe colonies - as I said, they were colonies of settlement - began to organise

themselves into communities and as a result of the breakaway of others, someconcession had to be made to them. I will not go into great detail about this orinto the controversies that prevailed in the home countries. The most outstandinginstance of this is the breakaway of the thirteen American colonies which wasachieved under conditions which are well known in history by this time. Thishowever had an effect - I suppose I may be wrong - on the expansion of theUnited States in later times because right through history you will find that theconsolidation of that territory as it is today was by and large not achieved by theprocess of conquest but by methods which today perhaps we would decry butwhich at that time were regarded as progressive, namely, the purchase ofterritories. Thus we have the purchase of Florida, of Alaska, Louisiana or RhodeIsland, which is very different from the way the colonial frontiers expanded in thecase of other imperial territories.

In more modern times the most outstanding instance of the abdication ofcolonialism was soon after the 1917 revolution in Russia when the imperialpossessions of the Czar were dispossessed by the Russians themselves. I will notgo into the details of it, and this is no reference to modern history, it is only ahistorical survey of a situation. However, by that time other events had takenplace.

IN MORE MODERN TIMES THE RULE OF COLONIAL PEOPLE HAS BEENof one race over another and thus, apart from the economic factor, the racialelement was important and gave rise to a racial doctrine, which now persists inSouth Africa and other places: "There are some people who are born to rule andsome others to be ruled, and it is not possible to train people of certain racialorigins to practise self-government." As against that, there was both in themetropolitan countries and in the countries so ruled a revolt against it. So therewas some opposition to the racial doctrine, which however was responsible forthe growth of slavery. But with the abolition of slavery on the one hand and theprogress of liberal doctrines in the home country on the other, the situationchanged.

However, the most outstanding instance in the context of our thinking was theblow to this racial superiority which was struck - though it seems far-fetchedtoday - when in 1905 the Japanese defeated the Russians in the Russo-JapaneseWar. In those days we did not think of economic, ideological and other questionsas we do today. But the whole of Asia saw this as the defeat of a Europeanempire by a small, short-statured Asiatic people. I am not going into the questionof the relevance of this struggle or the title to Port Arthur or anything of that kind.I am only dealing with the psychological aspect.

All through that period when we were but children, this idea - which may havebeen a very half-cooked idea - that there was no longer a superiority of racespread.

THEN IT WAS FURTHER DEVELOPED IN THE PERIOD OF THE FIRSTWORLD WAR. I am not for a moment suggesting that wars are to be preparedfor or that they should take place in order that colonies should be liberated. But atthe time of the First World War a great part of the world - I would not like to sayhow much, but the greater part of the world - was under colonial domination orsomething of that kind. Here I should like to say that a colony is a colonywhatever it may be called. The British system, with which I am more familiar, hasmany types of colonies, such as Crown colonies, which in the beginning were theprivate property of the Crown, dependencies - India was called a dependency, nota colony - protectorates, and protected States. There are places like Malta whichthirty years ago was called a British ship. Then there are other areas, but from aneconomic, social or political point of view all these are really part of the colonialempire.

So in modern times we have the great colonial Powers, the United Kingdom,France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. It is interesting that it is the mostpowerful of these empires that have given way first; this has been due to a largenumber of circumstances, and world organisations played their part in this - and Imention the International Labour Organisation in Geneva in this connection. Thiswas one of the survivors of the League of Nations which even survived theoutbreak of the Second World War. With the impact of the International LabourOrganisation it became difficult for countries that respected conventions tomaintain the standards of labour in dependent countries, and impossible for themto do so formally.

Secondly, there was the spread of movements devoted to the emancipation andelevation of the working classes. This also made it difficult for the continuationof this process; so that in some instances, not all of them, you will find thatempires have ceased to pay. Although empires have ceased to pay, this does notmean that some people did not make considerable profits on account of politicalpower or that some countries did not do so. However, what is usually forgotten isthat the great military arm of the Powers, the item that goes under theconsolidated account with regard to obligations undertaken for these purposes,also comes under the cost of empire. So while it is quite true that it could be saidthat such and such a country spent so much on a territory, and that its balance oftrade is favourable or unfavourable, that presents only one part of the picture. Butat any rate there is very little doubt that this was one of the considerations.

THEN LATER, WHEN THE WORLD BEGAN TO BE DIVIDED UP...between the great Powers, yet another category of empire was introduced, orcame into existence, that usually called "spheres of influence." So when Franceand Germany and Great Britain claimed various spheres of influence in variousplaces, those territories, while sovereign, still did not have independence.

Now, there are cousins, descendants, of this today. As I said, there were"vacuums" being filled in the way of ambassadors in some countries who are notviceroys there, but who sometimes function as such. There is also the attemptedpenetration or conquest of the mind, as it is called - or conquest of the body, itmay be. These things still resurrect themselves in various forms.

Now, why do I say all these things? Because, looking at the figures, we wouldfind a vast liquidation process - I will give you the figures in a moment - a vastliquidation process where we are told that these great, enormous empires are nowshrunken... But as to independence of the former colonies, we have to see whetherthe real substance is there, and if it is there, whether it is likely to last. In thatconnection one would like to say that while we debate here day after day - andseventy speakers have taken part in the discussion - there is an air of unrealityabout the whole business, considering what happened in Algeria only two daysago; when there are countries today like France and Portugal that claim the peopleof these places are nationals of the metropolitan countries. As I have repeatedlysaid to this Assembly the British did not insult us by calling us Englishmen; thePortuguese and the French do the equivalent of that.

The war that has been raging in Algeria for seven or eight years could not becalled a Moslem revolt, an Arab revolt or a revolt of anybody else: it is really awar of colonial independence, of the same type that occurred in this country, ofthe same type that has occurred in China. This has not occurred in our countrybecause we achieved our independence by other methods, though you could alsocall it a war in some other form if you like. It is the resistance of the peopleagainst the force of arms, against the armed might of great empires.

THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONSIDERATION OF SEVERAL OTHERPROBLEMS concerned with world politics, and I want to spend the little time Ihave, not in the description either of the balance-sheet of empire in terms ofpounds and pence or dollars and cents, or of the costs of this, that or the other. Ithink we must be realistic; we must realise that empires can flourish only in oneway, and that is by imperialist methods. That is to say, when you want tosuppress somebody, you will suppress them. So we have to take this in our strideand see how the modern world is likely to assist in the survival or the liquidationof imperialism.

On the one hand, after the period of the first World War, with the break-up of theOttoman Empire the greater part of Western Asia began to achieve its freedomirrespective of whatever internal progress in democracy might have been made.The Ottoman Empire, defeated in the war, in the old days would have had itsterritories annexed; but with the revolution in Czarist Russia, one of the greatAllies in the war was removed from the context of the empire. With theemergence of the United States as one of the great Allies, having one of thestrongest voices in the making of the peace treaties, its President brought up that

conception once more before the world, but it was called "the sacred trust" - I amnot talking about trusteeship at the moment. But there were no other peoples inthe world that professed this. This brought in what, in the future, would emergeas a new theory of sovereignty, that is, sovereignty thrust on the people but notconferred upon them. What the empire does is just to oppress them; it remainslatent and legal. And then the empire is lifted and the sovereign people come intotheir own. This really should be the modern theory of sovereignty instead of thecommand of a sovereign, anyway in the modern period.

So first of all there was this conception that there would be no annexations ofterritory, and though the discussions at Versailles and Geneva did not produce theresults that were required, there was a break with imperialism; and so you find athird phase, where the attempt is made - at least in words - to expand or transformempires into what may be called "brotherhoods."

This is all the positive side of it. But at the same time there is the other side of thepicture. There is Algeria; there is South Africa, where there is a situation ofanother type - I am not referring to the Union itself - where a Trust Territory hasbeen misappropriated by the administering Power and treated as part of anempire; there is the situation in the Portuguese territories, where alone in theworld today forced labour bordering on slavery prevails; there is, again, theattempt by France by force of arms to subjugate a people who are as capable ofand as much entitled to freedom as any community sitting here, and who havedemonstrated to the world that their sacrifices and capacities, in spite of theirlimitations, could be as great as their aspiration for independence.

BUT IN THIS MATTER WE MUST NOT FORGET - and this is where, perhaps,there should be some soul-searching on the part of the people concerned - that thegreat military alliances of the world are an aid to these empires. It so happens thatthese great colonial Powers like France and Portugal depend on these alliances.Let us take Portugal as an example. Portugal is a member of the North AtlanticTreaty Organisation (NATO), and this organisation definitely states that thesealliances are not only in regard to the metropolitan countries but in regard to thewhole of the sovereign areas. Now, it is quite difficult for a country like theUnited States, which has no colonies except for the territories in the Pacific areawhich could be considered in this broad category - it is quite difficult for them tosay that they will make an alliance, but minus these territories. Whether or notthere is going to be any such alliance, that would be a matter which I would notwish to go into. But it becomes an alliance with an empire. It is as though a freeman were making a friendly agreement with a slave-master in regard to both hisown free possessions and the master’s possessions.

So these great military alliances, whether in the North or in Europe or elsewhere,become part of an agreement with colonialists of the worst type. It is not only intheory that this is bad - and here, now, there may be reservations on this; we

believe that the resources of metropolitan France and Portugal for the oppressionof the colonies, their moral power to maintain them, the size of the opposition thatthe revolting people have to face, are all affected by this factor. Portugal hasproclaimed before that its presence in NATO attracts the friendship of its oldestally, the United Kingdom. One of the oldest treaties in existence is that betweenthe United Kingdom and Portugal.

Although the United Kingdom has made great strides in advancing independence- sometimes tardily, sometimes under pressure, sometimes under variouscircumstances as in the case of our own country, or, as in the case of the UnitedStates, by revolt followed by agreement - there still remain vast possessions. Andthese vast possessions have to become free countries.

CERTAIN PROBLEMS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE.First, what is to happen to small areas of 50,000, 100,000 or 200,000 people whoare as conscious of nationalism as any large country? To say to them that they areonly a small speck of land somewhere and that they cannot be independent wouldneither fit into the Charter nor satisfy their desire for liberty in their own lands.That is one of the problems that both the United Nations and the metropolitancountries have to face. And I would like to submit that any attempt either todisregard their desire for national independence on the one hand, or to tell themthey will be free in their master’s home on the other hand, would not in the longrun meet the bill.

The Assembly will remember the recent example of Cyprus. Cyprus,incidentally, brought modern Greece into the context of anti-colonialism -- and Ihope it remains there. We found one of those great European countries, a NATOally, standing up ultimately for colonial independence; but when they first camehere, the idea was to divert attention from the agitation in the colony bypresenting it either as a defence problem or a security problem for some people,or making the Cypriots a bargain for a cut-up among two or three people.

My own Government took the view that there was no question of this beinganything but a colonial matter. Cyprus, by law and by circumstances, byeconomic factors, political factors, sociological factors, was a colony and nothingbut a colony and, therefore, had to be treated as a colonial country entitled to fullindependence, and although it took a great deal of struggle in the United Nations -perhaps not always with the assistance of everybody concerned - Cyprusultimately attained its independence, though on that basis it has been vitiated bycircumstances. What I want to point out is that in the attempt to argue against thepeople who want freedom, often extraneous circumstances are introduced, whichmay perhaps provide some help for some time, but ultimately the people claimtheir own; and all that is left behind is a great deal of ill will and newer problems,newer complications which, if subject peoples do not take enough care, willbecome what will be called a joint imperialism.

I think it is right to say that a mandate, or a trusteeship, certainly represents theidea of the sacred trust and of divesting the old country of its colonial territories,but if the United Nations does not stick to the principles of the Charter and itsspirit and intent, then it is likely to become a joint domination of a helpless peopleby a more powerful people. This is always in the minds of the colonial peoples.

NEXT, I SHOULD LIKE TO SAY, BEFORE I COME TO SPECIFICPROBLEMS, that sometime in 1939 the colonial territories of the great Powerswere the following: the United Kingdom alone had about 13 million square miles;France had a huge empire of about 4 million square miles, eighty times that ofBelgium; the Netherlands had its own colonies. All that is now dispersed, but stillthere are in this world somewhere about 75 million people who are under colonialrule. Out of the 75 million people, some 20 million belong to the Britishhegemony and are on the path towards self-government. Therefore, there actuallyremain some 50 million people still to be liberated; and when we think that out ofthis 50 million, 14,871,195 belong to the empire of Portugal, we have thesituation that the Portuguese are the biggest imperial power in the world. And itwould be no answer to say that these people are not colonials, that they arePortuguese citizens, as I think has been argued here. So the greater part of these50 million people are the 14 to 15 million in the Portuguese empire and the 11 to12 million in Algeria. Thus, between France and Portugal are divided the largestcolonial possessions - not the most scattered, but the largest colonial possessions.

In regard to their position in Africa, certain new problems are faced. Unlesscolonialism is totally liquidated on the African continent, it is more prone tobecome the scene of contending ambitions, either real or suspected, which willplace the fortunes and development of the African people in serious jeopardy.Therefore, the total withdrawal of the empire from these territories is necessaryand, as in the case of peace and war, there is no half way house in this: either youhave an empire or you do not have an empire. And this is why we do not believethat it would be possible to progress from stage to stage at this period of worldevolution.

THERE IS NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THAT IS NOT CAPABLE ofgoverning itself. We have all had the experience of being asked, just before ourimperial rulers left us: "Who will command your armies? Who will commandyour air force and your fleet? Who will administer? Who will run the financeministry?", and so on. None of us found very serious difficulties with it any morethan other countries, and I believe that these problems are common toindependent countries as well. But then we are told that there are countries inAsia, such as Pakistan, India and Ceylon, which have ancient civilisations and,therefore, have had long periods of the rule of law, and so on, but it is oursubmission that civilisation is not a peculiar monopoly of any part of the world.

All we mean by making this distinction is that those of us who speak about itprobably do not understand other people’s civilisations; so we must abandon thisdistinction also and go straight to the position that this world must really be freein that sense. There should be no territory under foreign rule, no country whoseterritory can be used by someone else for purposes that have no relation to thebenefit or the advantage of the people who inhabit it. That is why, particularly inthis present time of vast military alliances, when the old system of strategicpoints, lifelines of empire, etc., is being transformed into the position of holdingthe strategic areas for purposes which are not strictly germane to the progress ofthe country, we must present our opposition.

As a result of this debate, whatever may have been the nature of the factspresented, the attention of the world which we represent is largely focussed uponthis question. We have also the situation that the resources of the world areattracting greater attention than ever before; and in this question of worlddevelopment, every item of liberation, the more people we bring into the area ofdynamic freedom, then the more people there are for constructive endeavour.

Let us take the case of Africa: the vast untold resources of the world are in Africa.This is not a counsel for other people to go and exploit them. In an area ofsomewhere about 11 million square miles with a population of about 222 million,98 per cent of all the diamonds in the world, 94 per cent of all the columbite, 84per cent of the copper, 55 per cent of the gold, 45 per cent of the radium, 33 percent of the manganese, and so on, are in this continent; and these are required notnecessarily for the purpose of building armaments, but in order that the world maymove to higher standards of civilisation. Therefore, even from the point of viewof making available the resources of the world, and making those resourcesavailable without the cost of blood and pressure - which is what a colonial warmeans - it would be to our advantage to introduce this gospel to implement theUnited Nations Charter in its reality. The Charter says this in what may be calledmore or less embryonic language, but it should be made a reality in that we mustnow address ourselves to the total liberation of these territories.

It is not a question of setting targets and dates. The only limitation of time on thisshould be the time required for transfer. And if one may say so, those people witha responsibility should not be permitted to take the attitude of the gauntlet with agift in it: that is, to say as in the case of the Congo, "There is freedom" - and thento come back the other way because there had been no preparation for it. I thinkthat the Belgian Congo as it was formerly is the most distressing instance of anempire of modern times. After seventy or eighty years of colonial rule nothinghas been left in the political, administrative or other organisations, and what ismore, after the withdrawal of the empire the former ruler comes back. That is onething we have to guard against.

The second thing is that no Trust Territory should be given independence merelyon the intimation of the Administering Authority that it is ready for independence,

without our being shown that it is so, and without the United Nations taking carethat the transfer of power will be carried out in such a way as to make re-entryimpossible. In the Fourth Committee soon we shall be discussing the problem ofRuanda-Urundi, and my Government takes a serious view of this question. Iinformed the Security Council only two days ago that, to the best of ourknowledge, there were two concentrations in Ruanda for the purpose ofoperations against the Congo. But over and above that, we have now been toldthat Ruanda-Urundi is fit for independence and, therefore, an election is to takeplace in a short time. I do not want to discuss the details here because it willcome up in the Fourth Committee, but while we yield to no one in the passion tolimit the period of transition, we do not want to see that used in such a way thatindependence becomes "independence"- that is, things change only to remain thesame or become worse.

Thirdly, I would like to say that we of the colonial areas who have been liberatedhave to take to heart the lessons of the empires of the past, and the fate of thepeoples who are still not liberated. Therefore the Assembly, and particularlythose nations who have different views from ours on colonial questions, shouldbear with us when we feel moved, when we seem to concern ourselves withsomething that is not our own territory. The place of every liberated country - Iam not speaking of the others - is with the struggle of the colonial peoples. It isthe determined policy of the Government of India that while we shall notparticipate in external military or other movements, while we shall not promotetrouble in any areas, while we believe that no revolutions can be exported, oursympathies and our solidarity are with those who struggle for independence. It ispart and parcel of a country’s attainment of national independence that it does notrun away from the whole campaign for human freedom, for the freedom ofcolonial peoples.

Again, it is necessary that people like ourselves who have been liberated fromcolonial empires should see to it that our place in world politics is a functionalposition leading to progress rather than to regression. That is to say, ourindependent positions should not be used by us or by others in order to furtheraggressive causes or to fasten tutelage upon other people. It would be the greatesttragedy if some of our liberated countries found themselves aligned against thecampaigns of independence or the liberation of other peoples. That independenceis not real even though it may have all the forms and the trappings ofindependence. The reality of independence must come from the peoplethemselves. And that reality is really not only political but also economic.

We, ourselves, do not object - in fact, it is a good thing - if there are fraternitiesformed either among the liberated territories or with their former rulers on thebasis of freedom. But this should not be merely another name for empire -whether you call it a commonwealth or co-operation, whatever it is - that wouldnot meet the situation. Those of us who are liberated have to make use of ourliberation. We should not be subject peoples under another name.

It is in the sense of the advancement of our territories in economic terms - morefood, more shelter, more sanitation, more education and more use of liberation -that is the implementation of independence.

WE CONSTANTLY SAY IN INDIA THAT ON AUGUST 15, 1947, whathappened was not independence but the removal of the main obstacle toindependence, namely foreign rule; independence had still to be attained. Whenpeople have adequate food, adequate shelter, adequate sanitation, adequatedignity, the capacity to exercise them - that is independence.

No country should, under any circumstances, be drawn willy-nilly into any kindof alliance, any kind of alignment which promotes either war or the domination ofthat country. Far be it from me to say that sovereign territories which areindependent cannot make their own policies. But we have the right to hope thatpeople who have seen the consequences of the worst wars in history - the greatwars have been imperialist wars, whatever form they may take - should contributetheir might, their ideals, their moral authority, in order to extend the areas ofpeace.

That is why you will find, in spite of the great conflicts in the world, that colonialterritories tend more and more to move into the position, even if they are formallymembers of an alliance, of asking to be left alone. And I think the mostoutstanding instance of this is the United States of America which for 150 yearswanted to keep free from foreign entanglements and wanted to be left alone for itsown economic development.

So it behooves those who are powerful people, who have other interests, notnecessarily of a selfish character, but who see things in another way, to leavethese territories alone to develop for themselves. The cause of world peace wouldbe assisted by the contribution that liberated peoples can make with theenthusiasm which they bring, and by the evidence they give to the world thathuman efforts and human co-operation can lead to advancement.

It should not be forgotten that in the last few years, apart from all alliances, apartfrom all Charter provisions and so on, the conditions in the liberated territories,which have an economic impact upon other countries, have led to the process ofco-operation. There is no country in the world today which either has refused toreceive or does not receive or does not give assistance in one form or another.Therefore, willy-nilly, a form of world co-operation develops. But for all this, itis necessary that there should be no reservations in this matter: no giving with onehand and taking away with the other. That is why a young country like oursstands very strongly against any imperialist Power making agreements beforeindependence in regard to either political, territorial or other rights. That is to say,if these areas which are in tutelage before they become free agree, as the price of

freedom, to the establishment of bases or to enter into trade agreements ormilitary agreements, they have not gained real freedom.

The liberty that the liberated territories get is conditioned by the burdens whichthey cannot carry. And I think the great countries of the world must take the riskthat in conditions of freedom, peoples would act sensibly, would act in the line ofprogress and not otherwise; and immediate advantages should not take precedenceover these distant ideals.

IT IS ONE OF THE GREAT PHENOMENA OF THE WORLD that while someforty or fifty years ago may be 1,200 million or 1,600 million people were underone form of subjection or another and - if we exclude China which, thoughcolonial in an economic and social sense, was not so in a literal sense - nearly1,000 million people were under colonial rule. As I said, only some 75 millionpeople are left, but they are scattered all over the world. They form a cancer onthe body politic of the world. So long as there is any place in the world which isnot liberated, so long as the people struggle for liberation, no attempt to givecolonial rule other names, no show of force, no military alliances or anything ofthat kind, would succeed.

We have made progress on this subject at the present session. That progress hasresulted not only from the fact that we have debated these matters here, but fromthe fact that the United Nations has asked Portugal to supply information.Portugal is the last stronghold of colonialism, and that stronghold has not fallenbut it is very badly beleaguered. Spain has agreed to accept the provisions of theCharter; Portugal has not agreed, and therefore stands today isolated. If this laststronghold falls, we shall have made another advance.

But we must not forget that the real objective is to abolish from this world anykind of rule by one nation or people of another nation or people, particularly if itis based on racial discrimination and similar considerations. After all, a people’sown economic interests are more important to it than the economic interests ofsomeone else.

THERE ARE VARIOUS DRAFTS BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY ON THISSUBJECT. The first, the draft declaration in document A/4502, has beensubmitted by the Soviet Union. We have read that text, and we find nothing in itto which we can object. That is to say, we are in favour of national Statesachieving their freedom in accordance with the freely expressed will and desire oftheir peoples; we are against extraterritoriality of any form; and we are in favourof the implementation of the principles of the Charter.

The second, the draft resolution in document A/L.323 and Add. 1-6, is sponsoredby my delegation, among others. It is quite true that the draft resolution could

have been shorter; perhaps there is a certain amount of repetition. On the whole,however, it represents what I have been trying to submit to the Assembly. Thereis no attempt at recrimination, no attempt to place responsibility on anyone but theUnited Nations as a whole.

I would conclude by saying that the emergence of so many countries into freedomis one of the great assets of the United Nations. While we may not always saythis in so many words - and it is not applicable to every country - we have to paya tribute to those countries which, whatever their past, have in more recent timesmade progress. We must recognise that progress is being made, but it is not beingmade fast enough. And the fact that progress is being made is no argument forour stopping our efforts. In the next year or two we should see the liquidation ofall these dependent and colonial territories. All these places - whether they besmall, like the Island of Malta, or large, like Algeria - should emerge intocomplete statehood and become members of this Organisation, unless theythemselves choose something else. We would be the last people to say thatbecause a State is independent it should not seek its fraternity. In fact, that is ourhope and it is the purpose of the present debate.

I hope that the drafts before the Assembly on the liquidation of colonialism willgain unanimous approval. It will be recalled that when the decision was taken todiscuss this item my delegation said that we did not very much care where it wasdiscussed so long as it was discussed. It was unanimously decided to discuss it inplenary meetings of the Assembly. That result was brought about by thearguments presented here and it is an index of our capacity to persuade each otherand of the desire on all sides of this Assembly that colonial territories should be athing of the past, that this world should become really free and that the process ofpeace and world co-operation should thus be facilitated.

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, November 20,196120

[Mr. Menon made this speech during the discussion of the item on theimplementation of the Declaration on Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples.

India co-sponsored a draft resolution to set up a Special Committee to examinethe application of the Declaration, and to make suggestions andrecommendations. It was adopted on November 27, 1961, as resolution 1654(XVI).]

20 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixteenth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages712-15

...We no longer regard the termination of colonialism as a matter of agitation ordemand by the ex-colonial countries or the present colonial countries. It has nowbecome a matter for the United Nations, because they adopted resolution 1514(XV) practically unanimously and, what is more, called upon countries governingdependent territories to terminate their rule. So, it is no longer a question ofyielding to agitation on one side or even of going into the merits of the problem.We have taken a decision on this. All that is required is, for those people who arestill in possession of power - whatever the legalities or modalities may be - tosurrender, and we shall thereby be able to save the time of the Assembly, and toprevent new Congos from developing, or new Angolas or new Algerias, and stillbetter, see the end of the old Algerias, the old Congos and the old Angolas.

Now we have before us an item concerning implementation of this GeneralAssembly resolution 1514 (XV). The resolution - considering the gravity of thesubject - is, except for its preamble, brief, and it points out that the subjection ofany people to alien subjugation or domination constitutes a denial of humanrights. But there is nothing in the resolution which is not already to be found inthe Charter. The difficulty in human affairs in the world is not that there are notenough laws, ethical codes and so on, but that people do not obey them.

At the same time, it would be wrong for us to think that great advances have notbeen made. Ex-colonials seem to monopolise the Chair of this meeting, whether itbe in the person of the President or of the Vice-President who now occupies thechair. We heard from this rostrum only a few years ago - five, six, seven yearsago - demands for countries` independence, and today not only have they becomeindependent States, but their representatives preside over the destinies of thisOrganisation. These are matters which we may sometimes forget, but if allmember States remembered them, they would see the enormity of their offence incontinuing colonial rule; because once the incubus of empire is removed, there isreleased into the world not only the liberty of those people but also their vastenergies, the removal of their frustrations and the extension of the area of libertyin this world as well.

In regard to resolution 1514 (XV), we have now passed from the stage ofdemands, justifications, or even of complaints, to the point of implementing it.Our purpose is now to carry out the decisions of the Assembly - and when I say"our purpose" I mean not only colonials and ex-colonials, but the entire Assemblymust now be involved in the more practical task of dismantling the empires sothat the territories will be returned to their respective peoples, under conditions inwhich their freedom can be enlarged and implemented. Thus will be correctedsome of the imbalances that exist, since this world cannot exist half free and halfslave, even as countries cannot do so...

WE UNFORTUNATELY ANTICIPATE THE FACT that, in spite of unanimousdecisions of the Assembly, there are countries - and fortunately very few of them- which do not co-operate with the Assembly in the implementation of itsresolutions. For years this Assembly has been unable to obtain the co-operation ofthe party directly concerned in respect of resolutions adopted on racialdiscrimination and therefore, even as early as 1954 or 1955, we set up committeewhere inquiries were undertaken in other parts of the world.

All members of the Assembly know that in the Fourth Committee, for the last twoyears, we have been struggling hard in order to persuade the Government ofPortugal to perform its duties under the Charter; and for a long time even thosewe thought would know better had been under the impression that the submissionof information on colonial territories was an act of grace. It is nothing of thekind; it is an obligation laid down by the Charter on colonial countries that theymust submit information, with certain limitations, in regard to their dependentterritories. This is now accepted, and I am glad to think that, only a few hoursago, in the Fourth Committee, another resolution on the subject of Non-Self-Governing Territories, also of a character intended to further the process ofdecolonisation, was adopted, calling upon metropolitan countries to take steps tohelp the emergence of adequate indigenous civil servants and technical personnelin dependent territories effectively to implement Assembly resolutions.

That particular point, although it has not yet come before the Assembly, is amatter of great importance, especially when we look at it in the context of theCongo. There is no greater condemnation of colonialism than what is takingplace in the Congo - and I am not thinking so much of the return of the Belgiansor the mercenaries or about Tshombe, or anything of that kind. The very fact thata metropolitan country, after years of rule, leaves a territory in such a state ofanarchy that, after its withdrawal, civil war and outside intervention follow,provides the worst picture of colonial rule that has come before this Assembly...

I REPEATEDLY SAID HERE THAT WE ALWAYS RECOGNISE and paytribute where we can for progress made. While the British Empire still hassomething like thirty or forty colonial areas and some 30 or 40 million peopleunder its rule, this vast Empire on which it was said the sun never set, and whichstretched over the seven seas and covered all these continents, in that place theprocess of unwinding has taken place. We ourselves take some pride in thinkingthat we encouraged this process of unwinding. But still there are these territories -though some of them, like Tanganyika, are on the verge of independence and Ihope that the territories of British East Africa will soon join us as independentcountries. I would like to express the hope that there will be no attempt made totake away with one hand what is given with the other, because any attempt todilute the degree of national independence that is given will kick back in a verybad way because the responsibility, in the sense of the exercise of power, willhave moved away with the metropolitan country and at the same time it will not

have become planted in the colonial people themselves.

So there is this vast territory of the former British Empire still left, and in somecases like that of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, we are waiting withbated breath to see what is happening, because at the beginning of this century,under the impact of nineteenth century liberalism, the British Empire conferredwhat was called independence upon a minority of people in that land of the Unionof South Africa, which is about 200 years behind modern civilisation in thesematters, with the result that a small minority was given "independence" to oppressthe others.

The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, geographically, politically,emotionally, and "morally" is contiguous to the Union. In the three territories ofSwaziland, Bechuanaland, Basutoland, which have geographical troubles, and inthe territory of South West Africa - which ought to be a Trust Territory - there arespecial problems. If they merely follow independence, without following thecontent of it, we shall again condemn millions and millions of people to adomination and a racialism of a small minority. This is why my country keepsvigilance over this matter. We have no desire to retard the progress of Rhodesia,or Rhodesia and Nyasaland together. We have no desire to pronounce on themerits or otherwise of federation or non-federation. But we are concerned to seethat the African and Asian populations and others who do not belong to the rulingrace as such, do not become the helots of an empire and do not have the samekind of democracy that the Greeks had 2,000 years ago, when the fortunes and theliberty of 300 people depended upon the suppression of 30,000. Therefore, whilewe shall keep vigilance over that, we shall not thereby subscribe to theperpetuation of empire. The United Kingdom has a responsibility to itself in thismatter, and to its partners in the Commonwealth, to the good example it has set inthe last few years by speeding up the process of liberation that in the name ofliberation more people shall not be condemned to racial helotry.

WE GO ON FROM THERE TO THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE of the twentiethcentury empire, the empire of Portugal. This comparatively small country inEurope had - I believe I am right about my figures - somewhere about 1.3 millionsquare miles of territory under its domination in Africa and in Asia and morepeople live there than in Portugal itself.

Now here is probably not merely a perpetuation of colonialism but an attempt onthe one hand to mislead the Assembly by saying this is part of Portugal. I wouldlike you to examine this not merely from the point of view of verbal terminology.But when a country says that another’s territory is its own, then it not only doesnot take the position of the other metropolitan countries - shall we say Britain, forexample, which always said "we own this territory, we hope some day they willbe free" - that some day may be 500 years hence - but in the case of Portugal itmeans that not only for today but for all time they deny independence to the

colonial peoples by saying, "You are not colonial peoples."

That is their way of doing it: they say, "You are not colonial peoples, you are partof Portugal." But if they are part of Portugal then they ought to have the civicrights and all the equalities that go with that status.

So here is a member of the United Nations that not only for today, not only fortomorrow, but for all time, will deny the homeland of a people to the people towhom it really belongs. And does any one think, when the mighty British Empirethought it both politic, part of wisdom, part of common sense and part of decency,to abdicate her power in her great Indian empire, does anyone think that the smallterritory in India which Portugal regards as Portugal is going to remain insubjection? Does he think that our desire not to foment warlike actions anywhere,nor to take direct action, nor to create more difficulties in the world than there are,is going to endure for long? Because peoples will not remain suppressed.

The other day, speaking in the Fourth Committee, because the representative ofPortugal had challenged some statements made by our Prime Minister, I hadoccasion to reiterate that we as a State have not abjured the use of force. There arelarge numbers of people in India who are pacifists, who will not use force.Gandhi’s teachings are against force. But as a State we maintain an army, a navyand an air force, and I hope a competent one. Therefore we have not abjured theuse of force. We have signed the Charter, and are willing to place at the disposalof the United Nations the armed forces of our country. And therefore if aggressioncontinues forever, if our people are subjected to being shot in cold blood, if thereis no civil liberty and if the peace and security of our land on the one hand and ofthe world as a whole is being endangered by the continuance of conflicts on ourterritory, no one has the right - not under the Charter of the United Nations - andthere is no law of morality, no law of political ethics, no law of internationalbehaviour, to prevent a sovereign land like ours seeking to complete the liberationof our entire country.

To us, as is often said in India, Goa is part of unfinished business. That is to say,there were three colonial Powers on our territory, one was Britain, the largest ofall. We have dealt with that Power, and that is all that really matters. Then cameFrance, which had seven enclaves in our country, and by patient negotiations webrought about a state where at any rate the de facto transfer of these territories,small as they are, has taken place and I do not think the de jure transfer can bevery long in coming.

We have for long tried to negotiate, maintained our missions in Lisbon, negotiatedwith these people. We have done so even when they went to the InternationalCourt of Justice on some grounds which were not tenable, when they wanted toclaim the right of way on our sovereign territory in order to suppress theircolonials. We have always observed the Charter and the law of nations.

What I said the other day in the Fourth Committee remains the policy of myGovernment. We shall not use force if we can avoid it. But when a time comesand aggression continues in such a way, when thousands and thousands of peopleare subjected to this situation, when our public opinion can no longer brookhaving their own brothers slaughtered, when the territory becomes also an arenaof international intrigue, then, as a sovereign country, we retain our right to takewhatever action we please, subject to the law of nations. That is all we said andthat remains the position.

But having said that much, even to describe the context, we do not rush in thesematters, because we believe that the use of force, whatever may be thejustification, always has other consequences. But it is not possible for a sovereignnation, adequately conditioned for its defences and for the maintenance of dignityand sovereignty, to keep quiet for long. This is in no sense the language ofviolence. It is not by the way of a notice to Portugal or anything in that character.But our people are impatient and our Government has been engaged in the last somany years in restraining that impatience, and we cannot for long suppress animpatience which is based upon legitimate grounds and upon the desire to be free.

Now that covers some of the territories in Asia.

IN AFRICA, THERE ARE ANGOLA AND MOZAMBIQUE, and otherterritories where today cruelty of a character which was not known in imperialtimes, for hundreds of years, is being practised. There are people who have beenvictims of the crime of murder, persons in large numbers driven away from theirhomes, together with their families. There are large numbers of refugees. A typeof repression is practised that not only is not consistent with the Charter but alsois not consistent with the conduct expected of members of the United Nations.We have not brought this up previously in any forum except to draw the attentionof other member States - and of public opinion - to it, and I hope public opinionwill take note of it, as public opinion will be the most effective solvent for all theworld’s evils, for it has today moved to a position where the country concernedhas no friends in the maintenance of its empire. We are one of those people whodesire to remain friendly with that country; our people have been associated withPortuguese civilisation, although through the channel of conquest, for three orfour hundred years. There are people who speak the language; as in the case ofPondicherry, it is not our desire, in the context of the independence or theliberation of these areas, to wipe out what has been historically built up.

But, at the same time, the imperialism of Portugal is one of those things thatmakes a mockery of resolution 1514 (XV). Here is a comparatively smallcountry. It is quite true - it has powerful allies. And again, without any offence toany one, any of the great Powers, we should like to say that the armed alliance ofcolonial countries with others causes us concern, because that might - as in thecase of Algeria, where, we are told, nearly half of the French air force and a

considerable part of France’s navy are deployed in the suppression of theAlgerian people - cannot last for long. Many countries in the world have nowrecognised the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic. Many othersdo not. It is only an exercise of discretion and patience. It will not be long beforeFrance will have to recognise that there are no two ways, today, in 1961, ofdealing with colonial territories. Either one remains there and faces theconsequences, or one leaves and conforms to the principles of the Charter.Consider, therefore, the French empire in Africa where, among other things,there has been the use of territories and that neighbourhood for the purpose ofexperiments with nuclear weapons, much against the desires and without theconsent of the African peoples.

So these are the unfinished parts of the colonial business...

PORTUGUESE COLONIES

Statement in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, November 13,196121

[Portugal, which became a member of the United Nations in 1955, maintainedthat its colonies were "overseas provinces" and refused to send information onconditions in these territories to the United Nations as required by the UnitedNations Charter. On December 15, 1960, the General Assembly, in resolution1542 (XV) asked Portugal to transmit information, but it refused to comply.

The matter was discussed by the Assembly in 1961. On November 1961, Indiaintroduced a draft resolution, on behalf of 36 countries, and it was adopted on 19December as resolution 1699 (XVI). Under its terms, the Assembly condemnedthe continuance of non-compliance by Portugal; established a Special Committeeto examine all available information on the territories; and requested memberStates to deny Portugal any assistance which it may use for the suppression ofpeoples in those territories.]

... there is hardly any need for further speeches on this subject except for the factthat fundamental issues in regard to the competence of the Assembly’s resolutionof last year concerning Portuguese colonies and the current discussion of thissubject have been raised. The trend of affairs in the world, the trend of discussionin this Committee coming even from present and former metropolitan countries,with the exception, perhaps of one or two, make it very clear that any argumentfor the purposes of persuasion is unnecessary. But at the same time Portugalhaving raised the question that we, on the one hand are practising some kind ofdiscrimination, or on the other interpreting the law by a process of tortuousconstruction, there are certain things that have to be said for the record.

First of all, I want to say, Madam Chairman, we did not deal with this question ofinformation or the basis on which information is to be given just this year or lastyear. In fact, the Assembly addressed itself to this matter long before Portugalbecame a member of the United Nations. Even at that time, most countries herewere ex-colonial countries, and they endeavoured to the best of their ability,mainly for the sake of the United Nations so that it should become a universalOrganisation, to offer their assistance in the process of decolonisation eventhough there were factors that prevented that mission. So no discriminationcharges can be laid at our door...

Article 73 is an obligation. It does not say to colonial Powers: do as you like."Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for theadministration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of

21 Source: Foreign Affairs Record, New Delhi, November 1961

self-government," it says, "recognise the principle that the interests of theinhabitants of these territories are paramount and accept as a sacred trust theobligations to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace andsecurity established by the present Charter, the wellbeing of the inhabitants ofthese territories and to this end...to transmit regularly information..."

Secondly, even without this categorical statement, if a country by its becoming amember of the United Nations accepts as a sacred trust the obligation to promotethe wellbeing of the inhabitants or recognises that the interests of the inhabitantsare paramount, it thereby accepts accountability, and the accountability in thiscase is to the United Nations. Therefore, there is no question whatsoever thatArticle 73, especially as read with Article 74 on the one hand and Article 10 onthe other, exempts any country from the obligations so undertaken.

THE NEXT ARGUMENT THAT IS ADVANCED BY PORTUGAL and herfriends is that this is a matter of interpretation. Interpretation became necessarynot because any of the other countries had refused to restrict or rather to definethe nature of information that may come and the factors involved in this...

The decision of the United Nations is not a matter of interpretation. It has comeafter very careful consideration. The factors to determine the Non-Self-Governing status of a territory and the obligation to transmit informationappended to resolution 748 were formulated in the 8th Assembly. Last year, theCommittee of Six countries - and these six countries included three who have inone form or another close relations with Portugal, and two of them definitely aremetropolitan countries, even if you exclude the United States from thatclassification - again gave very careful thought to this whole matter. ThisCommittee formulated 12 principles which were carefully scrutinised by the lastAssembly.

Now then, if you look at the formulation of these principles in the annex toresolution 1541 of the 15th Assembly, what does it say?

"The authors of the Charter of the United Nations had in mind that Chapter XIshould be applicable to the territories which were then known to be of the colonialtype" - then meaning at the founding of the United Nations, not when Portugalcame in. Therefore, this principle is applicable to all territories which were thenknown to be of the colonial type...

Principle 4 states: Prima facie "there is an obligation" - there is no ambiguity inthese words - "to transmit information in respect of a territory which isgeographically separate". Now not even this definition of Africa being Portugalor Goa being Portugal or Sao Tome being Portugal can change the facts ofgeography. These territories happen to be in other continents; and it is Portugal’sobligation to transmit information in respect of a territory which is geographically

separate "and distinct ethnically, and/or culturally from the country which isadministering it". I do not think that this principle 4, as formulated by theAssembly after very careful consideration by the Committee of Six and carefuldiscussion in this Committee, permits any ambiguity whatsoever. So, any ideathat we are making obligatory what was permissive was dependent upon what oneparty might wish or say that is not correct.

Then the next point made by the metropolitan country of Portugal is that theseterritories of 800,000 square miles or whatever it is, with 10 million or 12 millionpeople, they are Portugal, that they are a part of the metropolitan territory and,therefore, are not colonies. A territory of this kind ceases to be a colony in threeways: either it emerges as an independent sovereign State, which none of themhas done, or it votes for free association with the metropolitan country, which itcannot do because the people are not free, or it must be integrated with or into anindependent State - I am prepared to concede that Portugal is an independent Statefor this purpose and my Government does not want to go into the question of theform of her internal government: that’s largely her business and the business ofthe Portuguese people, and if that has international consequences those we canconsider in another context. But the integration of the independent States meansthat there must be similarity to begin with. Integration, which can be regarded asthe attainment of self-government is well set out in another place in theseprinciples. There must be some degree of similarity: there must be completeequality of people of the erstwhile non-self-governing territories and the erstwhilecolonial Power - neither is erstwhile in this case - both territories should haveequal status and so on and so forth...

Let us look at, for example, Africa. In Portuguese Africa there are probably10,000 people, some say 30,000, but any way a small number of people whocome under the class of assimilados. All the others are people of a different classof citizenship, if you can call it citizenship. In fact, their state is that of bondsmenwho have no freedom in the normal sense and cannot be regarded as having thisequal status. That is the present situation, but that does not stand alone. We canlook back in history. How did these territories become associated with Portugal?

SHE IS THE EARLIEST OF THE MODERN COLONIAL COUNTRIES, havingcolonised, conquered Angola in 1498, having imposed slavery on what is now theCongo in 1492, having conquered Mozambique in 1507 - the oldest of thecolonial empires, and she has no colonies of settlement. There is no case ofPortuguese empire in history where people have gone to a virgin country andoccupied, made it their homeland. They are the acquisitions of conquest andafterwards of exchanging barter with fellow colonialists of that type. That is tosay, the boundaries of Portugal’s colonies have been settled with the French andwith the English and various other people of the same feather and of the sameflock at that time. They all have classic characteristics of a colony of conquest.In these places themselves there were often warlike actions, and their biggest

expansion came in, as elsewhere in Europe, on the fall of Constantinople whenthey moved eastward in search of spices, the European nations having learned theart of cooking. And, they went in search of spices all over the world, first in theEast and later in Africa, and they captured the spice trade throughout after the fallof Constantinople at the end of the Crusading period. The route to India wasdiscovered by Vasco de Gama in 1498, and he tried to establish an empire in thatpart of the world of which only the small territories of Goa and other areas nowremain, having been beaten in the struggle for colonialism by rival Powers, firstby the French and then by the British.

Now, to control the spice trade the most valuable was the Indian archipelago,which afterwards became Indonesia. Albuquerque, the ablest of the Portuguesecommanders, came to the conclusion that the Portuguese needed a permanent fleetin the Indian Ocean. That does not look as though it was part of a free society.For this they required and secured a naval base with adequate facilities forfurnishing and refitting ships, if there were sailors to replace the losses caused byclimate and disease, which were the allies of the colonial people in the past. Theyneeded naval fortresses commanding the clearing houses of the Indian Ocean. Allthe characteristic features of a colonial empire were there. Goa was selected byAlbuquerque as a base in 1509 when he became Governor-General in successionto Almeida. Goa, at the end of the 15th century was under the control of theMuslim rulers of Bijapur. Being an island, it was vulnerable to attack by sea. InFebruary 1510 it was attacked by Albuquerque, and in November of that year itwas finally subdued and fortified... It is a colony of conquest.

Then we come to the territory, if you like, of Mozambique. In Mozambique from1498 to 1891, though I won’t go through the whole history of this, following thevisit of Diaz, there were attacks, battles, conquest and the erection of forts. Therewas ultimately the loss of Mombasa to the British, the separation of Mozambiquefrom the other part of the empire, Goa, and further occupation of further territory.In 1886 came the German-Portuguese treaty, in 1891 the treaty with the UnitedKingdom to adjust boundaries and to consolidate conquered empires. They are allclassic instances of colonial expansion of that period. The history of the territorynow known as Portuguese Guinea offers another illustration of this process.Really, all of these are sheer examples of conquest and there is - while you cannotunconquer except by the granting of independence, there is no factor in historywhich shows that there was anything in the nature of settlement, or developing avirgin country, or anything of that kind.

Now we come to Angola. From 1559, when Diaz landed in Angola and foundedan empire near what is now Luanda, the process of penetration and conquest wenton for 40 or more years. European colonists were sent to Angola in 1597, that is30 or 40 years after the first conquest. Then too there is a history of wars, withthe Dutch and others who followed, and the boundaries of Angola were settledpartly with the Belgians who were already in the Congo, with France in 1886,with Germany in 1886, and the United Kingdom in 1891.

So, any arguments that these are non-colonial territories, and by some freak ofgeography or whatever it may be, they are extensions of the metropolitan area,does not hold good. Therefore, Article 74 and the factors established by theeighth Assembly, and later by the fifteenth Assembly as a result of thedeliberations of the Committee of Six, including the three principles that I haveread out, are applicable; and Articles 73 and 74 are as binding upon any memberof the United Nations as any other part of the Charter.

My delegation submits, also, that the oft-repeated argument of Article 2 (7) of theCharter does not really require any refutation, because the Charter stands as awhole. Article 2 (7) was written in with the knowledge that articles 73 and 74were there. Article 2 (7) was written in with the knowledge that Chapter V, VIand VII of the Charter were there. One document has got to be taken alltogether...

Therefore, so far as the Assembly is concerned, so far as the Charter is concerned,so far as the law of the United Nations is concerned, so far as the practice thatobtains here is concerned, there is no argument, there is no justificationwhatsoever in pleading that resolution 1541 does not apply, that what we aretrying to do is to use the mass voting power, if you like, of the anti-colonialistsand others, of all people who believe in the principles of the Charter in regard tothis matter to discriminate against Portugal. As I said last year, the argument isthat everybody, except Portugal, is out of step!

Furthermore, even if it were a matter of interpretation, my delegation wouldsubmit that interpretation is law. All law is made up of statute, principles andnatural law, and judicial interpretation. From the time of the Romans onward,whose law the Portuguese respect I presume, even Pretorian time, there has beenjudicial interpretation. Law, under the same statute, is today different from whatit might have been 200 years ago. They interpreted it in the context of socialcircumstance.

PORTUGAL WAS NOT FORCED INTO THE UNITED NATIONS. She madean application to become a member... She came here with eyes open, with all thecustoms and the practice and the law that it takes, and therefore when she cameinto this house she knew how it was constructed and what are the forms ofbehaviour in this family...

I would agree with some of those who spoke before that either the acceptance of aresolution or even the membership of the Organisation does not mean that youaccept every detail or accept every comma and full stop. The membership of theUnited Nations does mean the acceptance of the Charter and its basic principlesand its articles. There cannot be any justification for saying at any time that eitherArticle 73 or 74 is a matter of voluntary acceptance, and the proof of it is that out

of the large number of members of the United Nations there is only one countrythat refuses to submit information. Furthermore, Madam Chairman, may I askwhether this refusal to submit information, which I hope will be a short-livedaffair because there will soon be no colonies to submit information about, is itreally to the benefit of anybody?...

We should also note the fact that a country like the United Kingdom, which hasfrom the very beginning submitted information, this year voluntarily cameforward before the Assembly and agreed to submit political information whichshe declined for so long. And while I have no desire to be ungracious about it,there is no doubt that practical men as they are, they realised that it is more usefulfrom their point of view, apart from anything else, to submit rather than towithhold information...

So, while the trend of development is towards submitting more and moreinformation, how can a country come forward and say that, first of all, the Charteris wrong, your interpretation is wrong, the Committee of Six is wrong, theAssembly is wrong, how can that be regarded as tenable?

It is not the purpose of my delegation at this stage to go into the detailedcomments that we may have to make or castigations we may have to make inregard to the administration of Angola, or the terror that prevails in these areas,except to point out that in Angola or in Goa, or whatever it may be, when terrorprevails, all the more reason why we should know, all the more reason whyPortugal itself should be concerned to either correct what she regards as mis-statements or exaggerations or put the thing in its proper perspective...

THIS DRAFT RESOLUTION HAS BEEN CRITICISED. Naturally, we are acommunity of 103 nations with different backgrounds, speaking differentlanguages - which in itself tend to cast resolutions in different modes, and we arelikely to look at them in different ways. But, as Sir Hugh Foot22 said a little whileago, we have to either subscribe to something or not subscribe to something in amatter of this kind, not by looking at every comma and every full stop... We hopethat this will be the last time that a resolution of this kind is passed; that theGovernment of Portugal will be willing to come forward, obtain and place beforethis Assembly what information it has - and the information it has would not bevery much, because it is not given to the colonial empires of this kind. There is somuch indirect rule...

Now, I am not anticipating what this report will be, if it comes. But what I havestated, I stated deliberately, because the time has come, Madam Chairman, for theUnited Nations to accept the position that United Nations resolutions having beenignored, having been treated contemptuously by the Power concerned, in spite ofthe obligation that she has undertaken under the Charter, in spite of the fact that

22 Representative of the United Kingdom

she had expressed repeatedly, it is for us to perform our duty, and that dutycannot be of a character where we force the doors of these colonies open, even ifwe could. That is not the practice of the United Nations. We are entitled toobtain information, to try together in the proper way by asking those whom wemay expect to be in possession of the information. If they will not provide that,then it is necessary that the Assembly find other means to keep itself informed. Ithink the draft resolution contemplates that situation where without violence tothe Charter, without violence to the sovereignty of nations, it is necessary that weshould possess ourselves of these facts, so that the liquidation of colonialism maybe speeded up, that some light or reason and truth will be turned upon this largeiniquitous area of the world where prevails the state of affairs which is at least500 years out of date. The conditions that obtain in the Portuguese colonialempire are as out of date as slavery, and share all the characteristics of slavery atits worst period.

I would like here to quote what has been said by my colleague from the UnitedStates:

"All members of the United Nations have a responsibility to advance theprinciples laid down in the Charter and specifically those of Articles 73and 74. Member States are also committed to seek solutions throughpeaceful means as called for in the Charter, and a number of relevantresolutions, including General Assembly resolution 1542. In the currentdebate the over-riding consideration" - and I subscribe to this - "must bethe welfare of the people of the territories under Portugueseadministration." - That is laid down in Article 73. That is what theyaccepted when they came in - "It would serve no useful purpose for theGovernment of Portugal to be led to believe that Portugal was singled outby the United Nations for destructive criticism; on the contrary, it shouldbe given reasons to believe that all member States are genuinely interestedin helping to create conditions which would lead to self-determination."

That last part is important in view of the non-co-operation of Portugal. The onlyway that we can give reason to believe that member States are genuinelyinterested is to try by genuine methods, by bona fide methods, to obtaininformation ourselves; and, therefore, we must look to those, who expressed thisview, to give us their support.

It has also been argued that my delegation had suggested that there was somelegality in the Portuguese position. I referred to it, last year, as legal fiction. It isquite true that perhaps, out of misplaced generosity, I referred to the Portugueseposition as a legal fiction. I am quite prepared to withdraw the word "legal". It isjust a fiction and nothing else. I said that out of courtesy - the legal fiction ofmaking colonial territories, the conquered territories of Africa and Asia part ofPortugal by an amendment to their own constitution...

References have also been made by the various speakers, and I believe it appearsin the draft resolution also, about the kind of action that should be taken bymember States in regard to the Portugal with respect to her non-co-operation withthe United Nations. I would like to submit the view of my country that this is nota vindictive act of any kind. The distinguished representative of the UnitedKingdom said: "We agree with the object of paragraph regarding support andassistance. We have certain obligations in the military field towards Portugal as afellow member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which are, of course,binding upon us...” etc. I am glad to see the first part which says that the UnitedKingdom agrees that certain action short of sanctions may be taken to express thedisapproval of other countries in regard to Portuguese policy about a vast numberof human beings. But we are not able to subscribe to the idea that a militaryalliance can be utilised by a country - directly, indirectly, either obviously overtlyor covertly - for the purpose of expanding or maintaining colonial power. If weagree to that, our position in regard to France and her actions in Algeria, all thesethings would stand challenged, whatever our views may be with regard to militaryalliances - that is a thing by itself, and we are not commenting on that. If it isfound that the military assistance given as a result of an alliance strengthens therecipient country in its colonial grip, then, whether you like it or not, the militaryalliance becomes an ally of colonialism. How can you escape that fact? It is nouse saying, the assistance is given for a different purpose. I have repeatedly saidin various committees: The gun that will fire only in one direction has not beenmade: much depends upon who is behind it.

So, if Portugal receives economic assistance, technical assistance, weapons orstrategic weapons as a result of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and if itstrengthens her colonial grip, then the people who give her assistance bear moralresponsibility, if not political responsibility...

Over and above all of this, they have to take into account that the United Nationsis not a mausoleum; it is a dynamic Organisation which must reflect with allinstrumentations the great dynamic forces that play in the world. And it is too latein the day now, especially after what has happened in the continent of Africalately, for anyone to say that there are certain parts of the world which can beshielded off from the effect of the forces of liberty and of the desire of humanbeings and of nations to be free of external authority...

That brings me to my last observation which I had not intended to make until Isaw the Portuguese speeches of the last few days. Reference has been made bythe distinguished delegate from Portugal - not the Foreign Minister whosepresence we are trying to welcome here - references have been made to someobservation made by my Prime Minister regarding the use of force in regard toGoa, which they call Portuguese India. I am glad to hear they call it India, even ifPortuguese. Now all we have to do is to get Portugal out: Then it becomes India.Now my country has at no time - may be it will, I hope, in the future - has at notime abjured the use of force in international relations, because the world,

unfortunately, is so constituted. A few days after our independence the armies ofIndia, ill-prepared as they were, went out into battle in order to repel the firstaggressor. There are others who today seek to occupy territory, and if necessarywe shall use force against them today. Today there are the armed forces of Indiaat the service of the United Nations in the Congo and in other areas. If it is goodenough for us to use force at the behest of the United Nations, and if necessary,against the violation of our territory, then if Portugal thinks that colonialism isgoing to endure forever, and if the example of Nagar Haveli and other enclaves ineastern India has been lost upon the Portuguese empire, irrespective ofGovernments, no public opinion is going to sit back, with the armed might of acountry whatever that be, to see part of it crushed under colonial rule forever.And we make no apology for saying that, while we have no intention of takingwarlike action against a member of the United Nations, if circumstances shouldbe of a character, if aggression should be re-perpetrated, we have not abjured theuse of force. But we shall not do what Portugal is doing in Goa, namely, shootinginnocent people in cold blood.

SOUTH WEST AFRICA (NAMIBIA)

Statement in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, November 12,195323

[From the inception of the United Nations, India played an active role inopposing and preventing the annexation by South Africa of the territory of SouthWest Africa, administered by it under a Mandate of the League of Nations.

The General Assembly repeatedly requested South Africa to place the territoryunder the United Nations Trusteeship System as administering Powers of othermandated territories had done.

At the request of the Assembly, the International Court of Justice delivered anAdvisory Opinion on July 11, 1950, that South Africa continued to haveinternational obligations under the Mandate and that Chapter XII of the Charterprovided a means by which the territory may be brought under the TrusteeshipSystem. While the Union was not under a legal obligation to place the territoryunder the Trusteeship System, the Court added, it alone did not have thecompetence to modify the international status of the territory.

The Union of South Africa, however, rejected the appeals of the United Nationsand any supervision of its administration by the United Nations. It offered toassume responsibility only to France, the United Kingdom and the United States,representing the Principal Allied and Associated Powers during the First WorldWar.

In this speech, Mr. Menon dealt in detail with the international obligations of theUnion Government with respect to South West Africa.]

(Summary)

The establishment of the Mandates System gave concrete expression to the idealof the international community, of which President Wilson had been one of thestaunchest champions; that ideal required that certain territories should no longerbe regarded as the spoils of war and treated accordingly, but should beadministered with regard for the interests of their inhabitants. That new conceptraised the question of where the sovereignty over such territories lay. Todisregard that question was to place the matter in a false perspective from the very

23 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighth Session, Fourth Committee, pages310-12

outset. There could be no doubt about the answer: wherever there was a people ora nation, sovereignty was vested in them. It so happened that certain peopleswere not yet capable of exercising that sovereignty, which in such cases wasreserved. That was true of South West Africa; in its case, it was the Governmentof the Union of South Africa which exercised sovereignty, doing so, however,under conditions which had been explicitly laid down, and any authority itenjoyed was by delegation.

The stand the Union of South Africa was at present taking was the one FieldMarshal Smuts had taken in the League of Nations before the establishment of themandate; as the Committee was aware, he had later taken a different view. TheLeague of Nations had not admitted the arguments Field Marshal Smuts had usedin favour of incorporating South West Africa in the territory of the Union; it hadnot accepted the Union of South Africa's proposal, but had established a Mandatefor South West Africa which contained important reservations.

Analysing the nature of the relationship which the Mandate had establishedbetween the Union of South Africa and South West Africa, Mr. Menon said thatthe Mandates System, of which the Trusteeship System was a logicaldevelopment, had conferred upon the Mandatory Power the role of trustee overthe territory it administered. The concept of trusteeship had already been presentin the minds of those who had introduced the Mandates System, as was indicatedby the expressions they had used to describe what that system was intended to be.He quoted a statement by Mr. Lloyd George in that connection. The role oftrustee had been well defined by Sir Arnold MacNair, a member of theInternational Court of Justice, in his separate opinion.24 Three fundamentalprinciples were brought out by his analysis - the trustee was not in the position ofthe normal complete owner, who could do what he liked with his own, because hewas precluded from administering the property of his ward for his own personalbenefit; secondly, the trustee was under some kind of legal obligation, based onconfidence and conscience, to carry out the mission confided to him for thebenefit of some other person or for some public purpose; thirdly, any attempt bysuch a person to absorb the property entrusted to him into his own patrimonywould be illegal and would be prevented by the law.

In a memorandum called The League of Nations: A Practical Suggestion,reproduced in Hunter Miller's book, The Drafting of the Covenant (Vol. II, pages23-60), Field Marshal Smuts had expressed a similar view, namely, that theauthority, control or administration of dependent territories should be vested inthe League of Nations, but that, as joint international administration had beenfound wanting wherever it had been tried, it would be preferable for the League ofNations to delegate those powers to a mandatory State, instead of exercising themitself. Hence, the relationship of the Union of South Africa towards South WestAfrica was purely that of a trustee to whom powers had been delegated and uponwhom an obligation based on confidence and conscience had been imposed,

24 See International Status of South West Africa, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1950, page 146

which would not come to an end until South West Africa had attained full self-government.

That obligation did not rest upon a contractual agreement; if that had been thecase, the contracting parties - the League of Nations, the Principal Allied andAssociated Powers, and the Union of South Africa - could have made whatevermodifications they wished in the status of the territory by joint agreement. It wasa question of natural law, in virtue of which it was the duty of the Union of SouthAfrica to guide the people of South West Africa towards the highest level ofhuman development. It was precisely for that reason that, under the terms of theMandate, the status of the territory could not be modified without the consent ofits inhabitants. For the same reason, the rights of those inhabitants, which weresimilarly derived from natural law, had not lapsed with the dissolution of theLeague of Nations. Moreover, it was not primarily rights that the trustee had, butobligations; his rights are limited to those essential for the discharge of hisobligations towards his ward. Since the rights of South West Africa persisted, itcould not be claimed that the corresponding obligations of the Union of SouthAfrica had been extinguished with the demise of the League of Nations.

Having demonstrated the legal impossibility of the disappearance of theinternational obligations undertaken by the Union of South Africa, Mr Menonpointed out that the South African Government had, moreover, solemnlyproclaimed its intention of continuing to carry out in South West Africa the sacredtrust of civilisation conferred upon it by the League of Nations Mandate. FieldMarshal Smuts in the League of Nations and the South African delegation in theUnited Nations had stated that the Union would continue to discharge itsobligations under the Mandate until some new provision was made governing thefuture status of the territory. Thus the Union had recognised that its obligationsremained valid and had accepted them.

The disappearance of the League of Nations had had only one effect: it had madeit necessary to revise the methods by which those obligations were to be carriedout. The Court's opinion concerned those methods of implementation rather thanthe principle of the existence of obligations. The South African Governmentrejected that opinion in its entirety and justified its rejection by pointing out thatthe Court's opinions had no binding force, which was, of course, true.Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that those opinions had great moral forceand that, moreover, the League of Nations had expressly transferred to theInternational Court of Justice the power of compulsory jurisdiction which article 7of the Mandate conferred upon the Permanent Court of International Justice. If,therefore, the Government of the Union of South Africa did not accept the Court'sopinion, it was to be feared that it did not recognise the Court's power ofcompulsory jurisdiction. Yet the Court was part of the United Nations, to whichthe League of Nations had transferred the powers formerly exercised by itsPermanent Mandates Commission with respect to mandated territories.

By its resolution of April 18, 1946,25 which had been adopted without objectionon the part of the South African representative, the League of Nations had takennote of the intention of the mandatory Powers to continue to administer themandated territories in accordance with the obligations set forth in the variousMandates until new arrangements had been entered into between the UnitedNations and the various mandatory Powers. The resolution added that theprinciples stated in Chapter XII of the Charter corresponded to those contained inArticle 22 of the League Covenant. The League had referred to the UnitedNations - and to the United Nations alone - as the party with which the mandatoryPowers were to conclude new agreements. Moreover, at that time, the drafting ofthe Charter had been sufficiently advanced for the League to have a very clearidea regarding the Trusteeship System. The resolution was therefore a perfectlyvalid act of succession, from the legal point of view, for its text specificallydesignated the organ which was to inherit the functions of the League of Nations,and it had been adopted in full knowledge of the facts.

The International Court of Justice had considered that the Charter did not imposeon the Union of South Africa a legal obligation to place South West Africa underthe Trusteeship System provided in Chapter XII. That statement, however, shouldnot be interpreted outside its context, for the Court had also declared that theTrusteeship System provided the best means for a mandatory Power to continue tocarry out the sacred trust of civilisation referred to in Article 22 of the Covenant.Consequently, there was on the one hand an obligation to administer a mandatedterritory in the best interests of the population, and on the other, the onlygenuinely effective means of carrying out that obligation; the inevitableconclusion was that the territory of South West Africa should be placed under theTrusteeship System established by the United Nations. Article 10 of the Charterwas couched in rather general terms, which accounted for its vagueness, butnevertheless it unquestionably empowered the United Nations to protect thepeoples who were still dependent.

The South African representative had said that the Indian delegation had accusedthe Union of having annexed the territory of South West Africa. That accusationwas justified: the Union was actually administering South West Africa as if theterritory had been incorporated into the Union, although that de facto situationhad never been officially recognised in any legislative text. In that connection,there was a flagrant contradiction in the assertions of the South AfricanGovernment, for it claimed on the one hand that the League of Nations Mandateauthorised it to consider South West Africa as an integral part of the Union, andon the other, that the constitutional measures it had adopted respecting theterritory were wholly legitimate and in no way amounted to annexation.

It was true that article 2 of the Mandate provided that the mandatory Power wouldhave full power of administration and legislation over South West Africa, but theexercise of powers did not per se constitute the sovereignty of a State. Moreover,

25 See League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 194, page 58

the Union's rights with regard to South West Africa were further restricted byarticle 3 of the Mandate, which prohibited slave trade, forced labour, traffic inarms and ammunition, and the sale of intoxicating spirits and beverages to theindigenous population; by article 4, which prohibited the military training of theindigenous population or the establishment of military or naval bases orfortifications; by article 6, which imposed on the Union the obligation oftransmitting reports on the territory; and lastly, by article 7, which stated that theconsent of the Council of the League of Nations was required for anymodification of the status of the territory. That being so, it was clear that therewas no question of the South African Government's sovereignty with respect toSouth West Africa, but simply trusteeship. In addition, the Mandate explicitlyrecognised two distinct entities: the Union of South Africa and the territory ofSouth West Africa. That was further proof that integration was not provided inthe Mandate.

It was not only in the letter that the Mandate precluded any notion ofincorporating South West Africa in the Union; that idea was also incompatiblewith the spirit in which the League of Nations had established the MandatesSystem. The League of Nations had rejected Field Marshal Smuts' proposal totreat the territory of South West Africa as though it were an integral part of theUnion. President Wilson had said that the objective of the Mandates System wasto guarantee dependent territories against any future annexation, and, in addition,to promote the advancement of the under-developed peoples of those territories soas to enable them to decide their own future. President Wilson had added that itwas the special duty of the League of Nations to protect the people of South WestAfrica from exploitation and abuse, owing to the bad administration to which theterritory had been subjected under Germany.

Although the Mandate implicitly and explicitly precluded any idea of annexationof South West Africa to the Union, the South African Government hadnevertheless conferred South African citizenship on the (European) inhabitants ofthe territory and had granted them representation in the South African Parliament.Those two facts proved that, in fact, South West Africa had become the fifthprovince of the Union. The Indian delegation would have no objection if theUnion had incorporated the territory in response to the freely and clearlyexpressed will of its inhabitants. Similarly, it would be pleased to know that theterritory of South West Africa had its own legislative body if that were a sign ofits independence.

The general policy of the Union of South Africa towards South West Africaappeared to be based on the accepted fact that the territory had simply beenincorporated. The South African Minister of Economic Affairs had statedrecently that the Union should pursue its policy without regard to any disapprovalit might arouse in the world. Such statements, which were not perhaps quite soruthless in their context, nonetheless fully justified misgivings concerning thefuture of South West Africa.

The people of South West Africa had made some progress in education ascompared with the situation in 1917, but that was true of all peoples throughoutthe world; the important thing was whether the number of illiterates had beenreduced substantially and whether the development of education in the territoryhad enabled the inhabitants to reach the level of the peoples of other countries.

If it was true, as the South African Government claimed, that the tribal chiefs andthe chiefs of the tribal councils of South West Africa were entirely free, it wasdifficult to understand why they had not been authorised to appear before theCommittee or why they had recently been barred from going to the UnitedKingdom, although their visit was to have been for purely religious reasons. Itwould appear that the local administration of the territory was not trulydemocratic...

Statement in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, December 19,195626

[On June 1, 1956, the International Court delivered an Advisory Opinion,following a request by the General Assembly in 1955, on the admissibility ofhearings of petitioners by the Committee on South West Africa. The Court held,by a majority opinion, that the granting of hearings would be consistent with itsOpinion of July 11, 1950, provided that the Assembly was satisfied that thehearings were necessary to maintain effective international supervision of theadministration of South West Africa.

The South African Government reiterated its view that the Mandate had lapsedwith the demise of the League of Nations and that the Union had no otherinternational commitments in regard to the territory.

On the proposal of India, the General Assembly requested its Committee on SouthWest Africa to study legal action open to United Nations organs or governmentsto ensure the fulfilment by the South Africa of its obligations under the Mandate.]

(Summary)

Mr. Krishna Menon (India) recalled that the territory of South West Africa hadbeen placed under the administration of the Union of South Africa in accordancewith the provisions of the Mandates System. Although the Mandates as operativeinstruments in the form in which they had originally been framed had ceased tohave effective existence when the League of Nations had been dissolved, theobligations which the Union of South Africa, as the mandatory Power, had

26 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Eleventh Session, Fourth Committee, pages145-47

assumed towards the international community were still valid. The UnionGovernment seemed to regard itself as a residuary legateee of the League ofNations. His delegation opposed that view, because it was obvious that theUnited Nations, in its corporate capacity, had inherited the position of the League.That view formed part of the advisory opinion of the International Court.

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations conferred certain rights andobligations, and was based on the conception that the tutelage of the so-calledbackward peoples was entrusted to the so-called advanced nations. Thatconstituted a sacred trust which could not be dissolved by conferring all theobligations upon the trustee. The sacred character of the Mandate wasimperishable, for if it was perishable, the entire foundation of the United Nationswould disappear.

The Mandates System had represented an advance over colonialism in that it hadbeen based on the concept of the sovereignty of peoples. Earlier ideas ofsovereignty had given way to the modern concept that the rights rested in thepeople, and to the extent they were dominated, the sovereignty was latent in them.In the case in point, sovereignty rested with the people of South West Africa; ithad not been conferred upon the mandatory Power. The purpose of self-government was to make the latent sovereignty potent and that was the functionand the purpose of the Mandates System.

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which had establishedthe Mandates System, the well-being and the development of the peoples of themandated territory constituted a sacred trust of civilisation. Article 22 likewisemade it clear that the primary obligation upon the mandatory Power was that ofaccountability. Every function and every authority exercised by the mandatoryPower on the people of the mandated territory was subject to the supervisoryjurisdiction of the international community. That accountability could not bedestroyed because sovereignty rested in somebody else.

The question at issue was what procedure would best enable the mandatory Powerto fulfil that obligation of accountability. The other mandatory Powers had settledthe issue by voluntarily contracting Trusteeship Agreements with the UnitedNations. There could of course be no compulsion by the United Nations, but theCharter must be read as a whole, and Article 80 should not be interpreted asgiving grounds for delay in placing mandated territories under trusteeship. Thefounders of the United Nations had provided only the trusteeship machinery andwhile it was arguable that procedurally there was no obligation to use it, theobligation of accountability still remained. His delegation did not suggest that theTrusteeship System was the only conceivable system whereby the issue could beresolved. Had the United Nations Charter provided for an alternate one, thatalternate should also have provided for accountability to the United Nations.

The Union Government had claimed that, with the demise of the League ofNations, its obligations to the international community with regard to theadministration of the territory had terminated. By having integrated the territoryinto the Union, it was seeking to deny that the obligation of accountability wasstill incumbent upon it or that a separate sovereignty was vested in the people.

The Union Government itself, however, had not always held that position. By itsacceptance of the resolution adopted by the League of Nations Assembly on April18, 1946, it had recognised that upon the termination of the League's existence thelatter's functions with regard to mandated territories had been bequeathed to theUnited Nations. That resolution had specifically referred to Article 22 of theCovenant and had noted that the principles embodied therein were the basis ofChapters XI, XII and XIII of the Charter. It had likewise noted the League'sintention that the Powers administering territories under the Mandates Systemshould continue to administer them in such a way as to promote the well-beingand development of their peoples in accordance with the obligations in theMandates until other arrangements were made between the United Nations andthe mandatory Powers. There was thus an instrument in the United Nationscapable of enabling South Africa to carry out its obligations. The meaning of thatresolution was that, pending a trusteeship arrangement for the territory, the Unionof South Africa was bound to honour its obligations under the Mandate.

That view had been accepted by the Union Government and expression had beengiven to it in the United Nations by representatives of the Union Government in1946 and later. The Union's responsibilities under the Mandate had been regardedas necessarily unalienable. Furthermore, in a letter dated July 23, 1947 (A/334),the South African delegation had referred to a resolution of the Union Parliamentstating that the Government intended to render reports to the United Nations on itsadministration of South West Africa, and had recognised that the Government hadno alternative but to retain the status quo in the territory. Thus, on its ownadmission, the Union Government was still under an obligation to render anaccount of its administration of the territory to the United Nations.

However, in a letter dated March 25, 1954, from the permanent representative ofthe Union of South Africa to the United Nations, addressed to the Chairman of theCommittee on South West Africa (A/2666, annex I, section c), the UnionGovernment had gone back on its earlier position, maintaining that since thedemise of the League of Nations it was under no obligation to submit reports orpetitions to any international bodies. In that letter it had stated that it wasprepared to enter into an arrangement with the three remaining Allied andAssociated Powers. Since, however, international law regarded the Allied andAssociated Powers as having been merged in the League when they signed theCovenant, any reference to them was anachronistic. Presumably all thesignatories to the Covenant had thus undertaken the rights and obligations that theformer Allied and Associated Powers had had in that regard.

The question of South West Africa was particularly important because itconstituted a test case which challenged the whole concept of human rights and ofthe independence of peoples. The inhabitants of the territory had lost theiridentity and had been absorbed into the territory of a neighbouring nation, whichhad not even granted them equality with its own citizens but had placed themunder the jurisdiction of its own Native Affairs administration. Under the veryeyes of the United Nations, a member State, defying the principles of theMandates System, had set out to create an empire. The United Nations would beabdicating its responsibility if it allowed such a precedent to be established.

The fact that the United Nations had not succeeded in persuading the UnionGovernment to place the territory of South West Africa under the TrusteeshipSystem did not mean that its efforts on behalf of that territory had been a totalfailure. Many formerly subject countries had similarly endured frustrations andsetbacks before finally winning their struggle for independence. In the presentcase world opinion had been mobilised and the facts of the situation had beenclarified. The United Nations should now try to determine what legal remedieswere open to it. Article 7 of the Mandate had made it clear that no unilateraldecision to change the status of the territory could be taken. That would meanthat in the present case the consent of the United Nations on the one hand and ofthe Union Government on the other would have to be obtained before a change inthe status of the territory could be effected. Furthermore, article 7 of the Mandatehad provided that should any dispute arise between the Mandatory and anothermember of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or application ofthe provisions of the Mandate, such dispute, if it could not be settled bynegotiation, should be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice.The Mandate had imposed a compulsory obligation to accept the jurisdiction ofthe Court. Since the International Court of Justice was the successor to thePermanent Court of International Justice, the International Court of Justice shoulddeliver a judgement in the matter rather than confining itself to issuing anadvisory opinion...

Statement in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, October 13,

195827

[On October 25, 1957, the General Assembly appointed a Good OfficesCommittee to discuss with the Government of the Union of South Africa a basisfor an agreement which would continue to accord an international status to theterritory of South West Africa. The Committee was composed of the United States,the United Kingdom and Brazil. Sir Charles Noble Arden-Clarke of the UnitedKingdom was Chairman.

27 Source: Foreign Affairs Record, New Delhi, October 1958

In discussions with this Committee, the Union Government rejected anysupervision by the United Nations of its administration of South West Africa.Instead, it was prepared to enter into an agreement with the three remainingPrincipal Allied and Associated Powers of the First World War - France, theUnited Kingdom and the United States of America. The Good Offices Committeesubmitted this proposal to the General Assembly without expressing an opinion.

The Union Government also suggested that partition of the territory meritedconsideration, with the northern portion being administered under a trusteeshipagreement with the United Nations and the rest of the territory being annexed tothe Union. The Good Offices Committee reported that some form of partition ofthe territory might provide a basis for an agreement and recommended that theGeneral Assembly should indicate its willingness to consider partition so that theUnion Government could investigate the practicability of partition and submitproposals to the United Nations.

The following is the statement by Mr. Menon strongly opposing therecommendations of the Good Offices Committee. The Assembly rejected therecommendations by a large majority.]

...Mr. Chairman, may I have your permission to express our gratitude to the threemembers of the (Good Offices) Committee, to Sir Charles Noble Arden-Clarke,Chairman, who comes to us with a vast wealth of experience as a colonialadministrator in the good liberal tradition, who has made a great contributiontowards the termination of trusteeship in Togoland and who, along with thosewho went before him, established in that part of Africa the colonial traditionwhich has led the indigenous people to independence and is continuing to do so. Iwould also like to say that Senor da Cunha of Brazil comes to us with a vastwealth of experience as a veteran diplomat of international relations. The thirdmember of this Committee, Mr. Walmsley, represents a country which has alwayssaid that it cannot live half-slave and half-free, a country which is putting up agallant fight against the problems of discrimination and is wedded to the ideals ofself-government of peoples. Therefore, it is all the more regrettable for us that wehave to join issue not only on one particular part of its recommendations but thewhole of this report lock, stock and barrel...

THE FIRST ATTACK ON THE UNITED NATIONS COMES FROM THEUNION OF SOUTH AFRICA in denying the one point on which there could beno doubt in the mind of anyone who has signed the Charter, and on which theWorld Court, in spite of dissenting views, was unanimous: the international statusof this territory. Now, the South African Government wants to say that thisterritory has only an "international character." I submit, Sir, that every territory,including the Emerald Island of Ireland, has international character because the

aeroplanes of international airlines go through Shannon. When radioactivity goeson around the world in an indiscriminating way, probably every country will beinfected; that also in a way lends international character to every country orterritory. But what is peculiar to these mandated territories is that they have got a"status" which is different from "character," and the differences between statusand the position established by contractual obligations are well defined in text-books of international law, and these differences are clear to any person, who haseven an elementary knowledge of them.

Therefore, when the Government of the Union of South Africa put out that thisterritory does not possess international status, it is denying its entity, itspersonality; in fact it is denying its parentage. The status of South West Africaderives from its parentage, going back to the days, to take a short-term view ofhistory, of the League of Nations where the first obvious technical abandonmentof colonialism was undertaken - thanks largely to President Wilson’s fifth point -and a kind of trusteeship - by whatever name it is called; they called it "SacredTrust", and we call it "Trusteeship" - was established. And, here, I would like tohark back to the World Court’s advisory opinion on this matter, in which nodissenting judge, and no dissenting opinion had ever questioned the internationalstatus of this territory. I promise a few minutes later to come back to this andexamine what is the content of this international status. I should first like to turnto the concluding remarks of this report of the Good Offices Committee.

In paragraph 2 of these remarks,28 Mr. Chairman, the Good Offices Committeegives us in some sense a jolt of hope and says that the Good Offices Committeewould have felt able to recommend to the General Assembly that certainarrangements should be accepted for inclusion in an agreement to which theUnited Nations would constitute second party. Practically the whole of this reportcontradicts that because South Africa will not agree to the United Nations beingthe second party. We shall be able to understand the unacceptability, the fallacyof this position only when we examine the content of status. Therefore the secondparagraph, apart from this mention of the United Nations constituting a secondparty, is really a proposal of some sort of "horse-trading," whereby a small part ofthis territory will be placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations in astrategic or other context, of a limited character, of a limited place, so that the restof the territory may lapse into colonialism. Mr. Chairman, let us make no mistakeabout it: when we speak about annexation, about absorption, about integration,what we are really doing is not adopting one device in preference to another: whatwe are doing is abandoning the whole conception of the mandates, abandoningthe whole conception of trusteeship, and going back to predatory colonialism.And neither in Asia, nor in Africa, nor even in more enlightened continents today,would there be people that could be pushed back into slavery once again.

In paragraph 3 this hope is completely belied. It is a false hope. It is stated that

28 In summary of the report of the Good Offices Committee, A/3900

the Union Government is not prepared to accept the United Nations as a secondparty to such an agreement, nor to undertake any obligations towards the UnitedNations. That comes from a member State of the United Nations and, what ismore, from a State which produced one of the draftsmen of the Charter itself, and,earlier in the mandate period of thirty years ago, put out the philosophy of theMandates system in a little pamphlet called, "The League of Nations", in a morepractical form than any of us could describe.

Though afterwards he might have contradicted it, General Smuts had himself saidthat the "mandatory State should look upon its position as a great trust andhonour, not as an office of profit or a position of private advantage for itsnationals." This is what was said by General Smuts, and not by the delegate ofIndia. General Smuts adds further:

"And in the case of any flagrant and prolonged abuse of this trust thepopulation concerned should be able to appeal for redress to the League,who should in a proper case assert its authority to the full, even to theextent of removing the mandate, and entrusting it to some other State, ifnecessary. No pegging out of claims should be allowed under the guise ofthe Mandate."

Now what we have before us is almost a verbal contradiction of this positiontaken up by South Africa sometime ago. On page 22 of its report Sir CharlesArden-Clarke's Committee points out that their own approach precluded anyagency other than the United Nations being the second party to the agreement,and it did not, therefore, consider itself in a position to express an opinion on thisproposal. Well, if that is the position I am rather at a loss to find out what theopinion of the Committee is in this matter. On the one hand it says that its termsof reference precluded any arrangement to which the United Nations is not asecond party. Now that is quite true. Such an arrangement is precluded not onlyby the terms of reference but by the whole concept of the United Nations - loyaltyto the Charter. And yet, when we read the earlier part of the report, we find thatproposals had been put forward by the Good Offices Committee for theexamination of information to be submitted by the Union Government whichwould set up machinery of various kinds - the new Mandates Commission orwhatever it may be called - in direct contravention of the machinery already set upby the United Nations, such as the Committee on South West Africa.

In paragraph 5 of the concluding remarks it is stated that if the General Assemblyshould indicate that it would be willing to consider as a possible alternative basisfor agreement the partitioning of the Territory, part of it to be placed underTrusteeship and the reminder to be annexed to the Union of South Africa, theUnion Government would be prepared to carry out, by its own means, aninvestigation as to the practicability of such partitioning, and if that Governmentfinds it practicable, it will submit to the United Nations proposals for partition.Now what does it all mean? It really means that the United Nations should come

forward and sanctify annexation. Now if the General Assembly were to considerannexation, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it would be acting ultra vires, because atits first session, the General Assembly, after considering a similar proposition,had already rejected annexation. The United Nations has not rescinded thatresolution by a two-thirds majority. How can it, then, go back upon its owndecisions?

As regards annexation - and it makes no difference whether part of the territory orall of it is to be annexed - it means that the territory held in sacred trust is to bepushed back to become a colonial empire in a country whose racial laws arenauseating in the extreme, apart from their being harsh on the people concerned.So much for one part of this proposal for partitioning the territory. As for theother part of partitioning, Mr. Chairman, I must say, I am quite sure that theauthors of this report, probably, had not looked at it from this point of view; and Ido hope I do not exaggerate when I say that the second part of this proposal is ademand - a request to the Assembly to internationalise apartheid, not merely inthe Union of South Africa but in what is now an international territory. There willbe set up two territories; one for the whites and the other for the non-whites; andin this way apartheid will be internationalised. That is the proposition. I amafraid - and I am sure I am not being optimistic - this matter will gain no vote inthis Assembly except that of the Union of South Africa, and since she is absent itwill be unanimously rejected.

Of course the Union is quite willing to carry out an investigation, and whowouldn’t in those circumstances? Therefore, I join with the delegate of Haiti insaying that my Government will not in any way lend any support to any proposalsfor the partitioning of this territory, not because the territory may not bepartitioned as a trust territory - it is conceivable that in the future a TrusteeshipAgreement instead of providing for administration in one unit, may provide foradministration in five units, or two units, or three units; that is not the point - butbecause we could not agree to a proposal whereby a part of this territory is to goout of what is called the "sacred trust." Even this trusteeship, contemplated for apart of the territory, is to be of a limited character, and we regret that in paragraph(7) the Committee expressed to the General Assembly the view that partitionmight provide a basis for an agreement concerning the Territory of South WestAfrica. With great respect we entirely reject this view. This will not provide thebasis of an agreement; this will be the expression of the sanctification of apartheidby an international authority; it will take away the richest part of this territory forcolonial exploitation and for economic imperialism; it will be disregarding theprovisions of the Charter and bowing before the challenge that has been thrownout to the United Nations. It will merely create a situation in which while wecriticise, when criticism is due, the record of administration of countries like theUnited Kingdom, France, Italy, Belgium, Australia and the United States, who,voluntarily placed other mandated territories under the United Nations trusteeship,we shall be putting a premium on bad behaviour to put it mildly.

AND THEN WE ARE ASKED TO ENCOURAGE THIS PARTITION IDEA! Ithink in discussing a question of this character we ought to go back to the basis onwhich the whole of this position rests. The South African claim, in as far as it hasbeen acclaimed in opposition to the United Nations, is based upon the idea thatthey had this territory mandated to them by the League of Nations. They are notprepared to accept any greater obligations than under the Mandate. For myself -though I think it is the wrong thing to say in this day and age when the world isnot what it was at the time of the League of Nations, when hundreds andthousands of millions of people have come into the orbit of freedom, when allcontinents have come into this Organisation, which was not the case during thelife time of the League, and from that point of view it would be an indefensibleposition - I am prepared to accept the position that we do not ask the SouthAfrican Government to accept any more obligations than those under theMandate. But what are those obligations under the Mandate?

First of all, the essence of this Mandate system is the idea of a sacred trust. Onedoesn’t have to belong to one religion or another or to any at all, in order to acceptthis conception. The element of sanctity in a trust is that it is dedicated, devotedexclusively, to a certain end, and that end in this particular case is the wellbeingof the people, who have not yet attained self-government or independence. Thiswas repeatedly stated by President Wilson at that time in his speeches andstatements, and it was embodied in Article 22 of what is called the Covenant ofthe League of Nations.

It is quite true that in those days, forty years ago, the advocacy of indigenouspopulations assuming the rights and obligations of self-government was not easilyacceptable; but it was accepted by implication in the Covenant in so far as it saidthat this applied to peoples, who had not yet attained self-government, meaningthereby that they would attain, should attain self-government. "Sacred" also issomething entitled to reverence and respect, but more than anything else sanctityinvolves inviolability of purpose, and is not to be profaned. We cannot abandonthe basic purposes of the original foundation of this sacred trust.

This sacred trust has a comparatively early history starting, as most of thesethings, in the conflict between the haves and the have-nots, between liberty andauthority, in the United Kingdom. A compatriot of yours, in historical context,Mr. Chairman, who was one of the leaders of British political thought in theHouse of Commons, faced with the repression of the British in India, challengedthe Government of the day. When Mr. Fox, the then Secretary of State,introduced the India Bill in the House of Commons in 1783, Edmund Burke hadsaid "all political power, which is set over men, ought to be in some way or theother, exercised ultimately for their benefit. Every species of political dominionand every description of commercial privilege are all, in a strict sense, a trust." Itis the very essence of a trust to be rendered accountable, and that is exactly whereSouth Africa has challenged us. Therefore at this stage you will, perhaps, allow

me to analyse our point of view briefly.

Whatever the content of this trust, the main essence of it is accountability,whether under the Mandates system or under United Nations Trusteeship. It maybe that under the Mandate accountability is somewhat limited, but the point is inwhom does this accountability vest? Surely the Mandatory Power is accountableto some one. It cannot be accountable to the population because the population isnot yet free, and is not able to guard and look after its own interests.

Secondly, the Government of South Africa is not the Government of South WestAfrica. The Union Government is not the Government, much less the sovereignauthority, over South West Africa. The Union of South Africa is theAdministering Authority. It has no dominion over this territory, is not a sovereignpower of this territory, it is truly a mandatory of this territory. The League ofNations called upon it to look after this territory. It has already been set out in somany documents and so many text-books of law, in the advisory opinion of theWorld Court itself, that the Union Government has no sovereignty over SouthWest Africa. No mandatory Power has any sovereignty over the mandatedterritories. Sovereignty does not rest neither in the Union Government, nor evenin the United Nations or the League of Nations. Sovereignty over this territoryrests in the people of that territory alone and lies latent, and the purpose ofdevelopment of the territory is to make it actual. The latent sovereignty - somepeople call it retarded or reserved sovereignty - vests in the people and the SouthAfrican Government has a right to be there only to the extent that Administrationhad been conferred upon it by the League of Nations under certain conditions.That is the second aspect of the content of the international status of the territoryof South West Africa.

The third aspect is that there is no unlimited or residuary power vesting in theUnion. The Union acts in the territory, and administers it under a definitearrangement. Now therefore, I come to that part of it, for the South AfricanGovernment and their friends bank a great deal on that part of Mandate, whichsays that the territory is to be administered as an integral part of the Union, andthe laws of the Union are applicable to the territory.

Now, Mr. Chairman, subject to certain reservations, I submit that similarprovisions exist in some Trusteeship Agreements whereby the trust territories maybe treated as integral parts for administrative purposes only. In the case of SouthWest Africa and the Union Government there is one factor which we may neverforget, and that is that the laws which were to be administered and which were tobe applied in this territory were the laws of the Union as they existed in 1920. Itis since then that South Africa has made laws, which make the existence of ahuman being, who is not a white citizen of South Africa, very unenviable. As adistinguished South African judge once said, they make so many laws in thatcountry that if an African steps out of his house he commits a crime. The lawsthat are applicable to South West Africa are the laws framed by an imperialist

government in a period of liberal thinking, in the days of Wilson. None of thelaws, whether it be the Suppression of Communism Act, so called, or the WhiteBill, or the Black Bill, or the Blue Bill, none of these laws is applicable to thismandated territory. In this same way the old Common Law that is applicable tocertain British territories is the Common Law that they took from England at thetime they went away. Any developments that took place in England thereafter arenot included in it.

And, therefore, if you take this view of the status then we come to the question,not whether South Africa would place these territories under trusteeship in thefuture - and we can quite well understand why the Union, in view of theinapplicability of these attributes today should deny the international status of theterritory - but what the obligations of the Union are in relation to the Mandate.There is the question of accountability. First there is no accountability to theindigenous population because they are not citizens, they are denied freedom.There is no accountability to the international authority.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I pointed out that the League of Nations, in this case,any more than the United Nations, is not a super-state. The League of Nationshad no authority over this territory, except in regard to the supervision of theMandate. And, therefore, the argument that the League of Nations is dead is notrelevant. The League of Nations may be dead, may have passed away; but, asJustice MacNair has pointed out, though the Mandator may not be there, themandatory Power is there, the Mandate is there, and the Mandate cannot bedisturbed.

NOW, THE QUESTION ARISES: WHO ARE THE PARTIES? Sir CharlesArden-Clarke’s report speaks about the second party; it does not speak about thethird party. As far as the Mandate is concerned, there are three parties: theLeague of Nations, the South African Government as the Mandatory Power, andthe principal party concerned, the people of South West Africa. They are the realowners of this place in whom sovereignty rests. So, if it is argued that the Leagueof Nations having passed away the Union of South Africa becomes the residuarylegatee of the League in so far as this territory is concerned, that is a position thatcannot be accepted.

Several statements were made by South Africa itself before this Organisation, andin the League of Nations before and at the time of its dissolution, to the effect thatthe Mandatory Power was willing to continue to discharge its obligations asheretofore. "The Union will continue to administer the territory," said Mr. LeifEgeland, a former colleague of mine, "scrupulously in accordance with theobligations of the Mandate, and for the advancement of moral and materialinterests of its inhabitants as she has done during the past six years when meetingsof the Mandatory Commission could not be held. The disappearance of thoseorgans of the League concerned with the supervision of the Mandates, primarily

the Mandates Commission and the League Council, will necessarily precludecomplete compliance with the letter of the Mandate. The Union Government will,nevertheless, regard the dissolution of the League as in no way diminishing itsobligations under the Mandate, which it will continue to discharge with the fulland proper appreciation of its responsibilities until such time as otherarrangements are agreed upon concerning the future of this territory." This is notour statement, it is a statement of the South African Government. I do not knowthis will translate into French or Spanish, Russian or Chinese, but these words -"until such time as other arrangements are agreed upon" - have got a significance.They presuppose the eventuation of an event which is to come. When you say"until such time as other arrangements are agreed upon," it does not presupposethat these arrangements will not come about; it means that they will come, butthey will take time.

There are several similar statements made by the South African Union at varioustimes. But here, I shall refer to only one more of these. In 1946 a memorandumwas submitted by the South African Legation in Washington to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which stated that the responsibility of the UnionGovernment as Mandatory was necessarily inalienable. In 1946 the PrimeMinister of the Union in a statement to the Fourth Committee repeated thisdeclaration. On July 23, 1947, in support of a resolution of the UnionParliament, the following declaration was made: "...the Government shouldcontinue to render reports to the Organisation, as it has done hitherto, under theMandate. In the circumstances, the Union Government has no alternative but tomaintain the status quo and to continue to administer the Territory in the spirit ofthe existing statute." It is, therefore, obvious that all that time, while the UnionGovernment did not enter into a Trusteeship Agreement in respect of South WestAfrica, the matter was pending. There was no question of denying the Union'sobligation of accountability.

From there, from this rather legalistic, if you like, or the more political-scientificcontent of the status of the territory, we may come to one or two matters, whichare important to the people of South West Africa.

IT IS THE ESSENCE OF A TRUST TERRITORY OR MANDATED AREA thatit is not to be exploited to the economic advantage of the mandatory Power. Anysuch exploitation would be totally contrary to justice. If you look at thisdocument that we have here before us, (S/3900) and look at the objections of theUnion to placing this Territory under Trusteeship, then it will become clear thatthe reasons why these people cannot be free or be placed on the road to freedom,the reason why the sacred trust has been violated are: First, that South WestAfrica is essential to the security of the Union. Now, as I pointed out, the essenceof the trust is that the purposes, not of the trustee, but of the territory placed undertrust come first. Secondly, the interests of the Union of South Africa and SouthWest Africa are inextricably bound with each other.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that that is not an unusual phenomenon. There aremany trust territories in East Africa, for example, whose interests are bound withone another. There are many common arrangements between Tanganyika andcertain other East African territories. No one can take objection to thesearrangements. It may be their economies are complementary. It may be that thedevelopment of one helps the development of other and so on. But it cannot besaid that because there is a relationship of a close character between two personstherefore one person cannot be free. Togetherness in this case lies in one personhaving his hand on the other fellow’s throat. That is the very close proximity ofwhich we hear, and a very convenient one! That is the inextricable nature of thisrelationship!

The third reason is that South West Africa by itself could not be economicallyviable. Now that is a very classic description of an imperialist Power’s attitude.An economy is not viable because under conditions of exploitation its resourceswill not be developed. It is not viable in the existing terms of trade so long as thepeople of a territory continue to be reduced to hewers of wood and drawers ofwater.

Then the fourth reason is that the South African people - and I do not in any wayminimise the burdens they carry - have borne financial responsibilities for theterritory's administration. First of all, it is difficult to make a balance-sheet ofwhat the imperial Powers take out of a place and what they put into it. But SouthAfrica would not be the first mandatory Power before us; she is not the onlyAdministering Authority before us which has accepted responsibilities. We mayturn around and ask, for example, the distinguished delegate of the UnitedKingdom or of Belgium to what extent they have borne financial responsibilities,shall we say, in Tanganyika or some other place? Therefore, these arearguments, which not only have no substance in them, but contradict the wholeconception of the sacred trust, and, what is more, they are cast in the conceptionof an exploiting imperialism.

Then we are told that there are two types of people here and the Bantu inhabitantshave in the past indicated their satisfaction with an agreement involvingannexation of the territory to the Union. It reminds one of the sorrowful tales ofthe days of slavery, when it was always said that slavery could not be abolishedbecause the slaves did not want to be free. I ask, Mr. Chairman, how it is possiblethat the Bantu inhabitant is competent to express an opinion about the status of theterritory if that status means alliance with South Africa, but is not competent togovern himself and express opinion in other ways. If he is competent to expresshis opinion, then he must be competent to govern himself; no question ofannexation, no question of trusteeship arises. That is the position.

THEN THE QUESTION IS: THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS HAVING PASSED

AWAY, if there was an authority in the League whether that authority should restin the United Nations or not. There are two aspects I wish to consider. First ofall, Sir, it is not a question merely of what agreement there was between theLeague and any other country in the world. Those who subscribe to the Charterhave an obligation, and have a relationship with the rest of the world. Therelationship with regard to the world problems will superviene any agreementsthat might have been reached in the past.

The Charter, in that sense, I cannot say eclipses, but comes above all these things;but over and above that, there is a sufficiently outstanding authority for us to relyupon; and that is the fact that succession in regard to world affairs today rests inthe United Nations. Now, on this question, again, there are so many observationsand so much analysis of the position in the Advisory Opinion of the World Courtthat it is unnecessary to argue about it at length. There can only be one worldorganisation, if it is to be a world organisation. Otherwise it is only a half-worldorganisation. When an international organisation like the League of Nations -says one of these advisory opinions - disappears, another one is created, withoutindication as to whether the latter replaces the former. If the first organisation hascreated an institution, such as the Mandate having for its purpose the same sacredtrust of civilisation as the Trusteeship created by the second organisation, then thelatter must be considered as succeeding the former, ipso facto. Therefore thesuccessor to the League is the United Nations, whatever may be the legalquibbles. But if South Africa wants to argue that she is prepared to go on with thearrangements under the Mandate, there may be a case for working that out. It isup to the United Nations to set up its own Mandates Commission, to receivereports on the territory, and to supervise the work in the same way that the Leaguemay have done. I can see a case in that way; but I cannot see a case, particularlywith any authority, whereby one may say: the donor of this is dead; I am thebeneficiary; I have got the beneficiary rights.

The mandate has not only been vitiated, it has been violated by non-accountability. It is not that non-accountability is not self-evident, because SouthAfrica itself submitted information. Again I regret that I cannot fully agree withthe Good Offices Committee's report, which says that information should not besent to the United Nations. It is quite true that Article 73 is not the mostcomplimentary, the most appropriate but Trust or no Trust, Mandate or noMandate, this territory is non-self-governing, and Article 73 applies to non-self-governing territories. It may be that it is not adequate, but then we should be theones to complain. When South Africa sent in the reports, sent information, it wasquite clear that the South African Government, as then constituted, felt that it wasright to send these here, and it was evidently not, then, sure of its position in everyway. Non-accountability having disappeared, the bottom has been knocked out ofthe Mandate altogether. So all this argument is futile in as far as the doctrine ofnon-accountability is not accepted. The idea that these peoples ought to progresstowards self-government - their independence is latent - should fructify theadministration.

Though the League resolution (of April 18, 1946) says that at the termination ofthe League's existence, the functions of the League with regard to the Mandatedterritories would come to an end, it goes on to note that Chapters XI, XII, XIII ofthe Charter embody principles corresponding to those declared in Article 22 (ofthe League Covenant). It goes on further to take note of the expressions ofintention of the members of the League, which included the Union of SouthAfrica, to continue to administer the territories mandated to them for the well-being and development of the peoples concerned in accordance with theobligations contained in the Mandates until other arrangements are agreed upon.Therefore, the question of there being nobody to step into the shoes of the Leagueof Nations does not exist.

I COME NOW TO THE ALMOST FANTASTIC SUGGESTION, IF I MAYUSE THE WORD WITHOUT OFFENCE, in regard to an agreement with thePrincipal Allied and Associated Powers. Who are the Principal Allied andAssociated Powers? The Principal Allied and Associated Powers are the USA,the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, and then other Powers constitutingwith the Principal Powers mentioned above are the Allied and Associated Powers.I say, first, that even if there was to be an agreement of the kind suggested, if thiswere to hold any water at all, especially in this day and age, you could notseparate the Principal Allied and Associated Powers from the Allied andAssociated Powers as a whole, and these latter include Belgium, China, Ecuador,Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil and all of us who sit here - or most of us.

But for the purposes of this argument I need not go so far. One of the PrincipalAllied and Associated Powers is His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Ireland, the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor ofIndia. Now, my distinguished colleague, the representative of the UnitedKingdom will notice that this was the title of His Majesty prior to 1932. Thosewere the days when the King of the United Kingdom was sovereign of theterritory of South Africa and of India. If you read the list of signatories of theVersailles Treaty, you will find that the United Kingdom was represented by fivedelegations: the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Unionof South Africa - so she is herself one of the Principal Allied and AssociatedPowers, and what the Union Government is asking is that she concludes a treatywith herself - Britain and New Zealand; and also India, represented by the Rt.Hon. Edwin Montagu and His Highness the Maharajah of Bikaner. If there arePrincipal Allied and Associated Powers, we are part of, and successor to, theseAllied and Associated Powers. Therefore there can be no question of resurrectingthis ghost of the Principal Allied Powers, the remnant of a predatory imperialism,in order to beat the purposes of the trusteeship system.

IF I GO BACK, THE CONCEPTION OF THE SACRED TRUST and of the

discharge of this trust, which is not an invention of the modern age, and does notcome from what may be called an extreme doctrine, comes from the arch-priest ofBritish Conservatism, Edmund Burke, when he impeached the government of theday for maladministration. The charges were the assumption of autocraticpowers, breaches of trusteeship - breach of trusteeship now is worse than in thedays when there were no trusteeship agreements - and injustices to the peopleunder its charge in India. Burke ended his historic speech of February 15, 1788 -and we do not seem to have moved very much further with South Africanrelations; we seem to have moved very much backwards - with an indictment andimpeachment of Warren Hastings, who is alleged to have perpetrated so many badthings in India. The impeachment was made not by him as individual but as aleader of the House of Commons. He said:

"I impeach Warren Hastings...

"I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain inparliament assembled... I impeach him in the name of the people of India,I impeach him in the name of human nature itself..."

The whole of this conception stands convicted today in the name of the people ofSouth West Africa. It stands convicted in the name of what we call theDeclaration of Human Rights. And here we are asked to hand over these peopleto a country which has practised apartheid and glorifies it, which tells the worldshamefacedly that this is the pattern you should follow in order to solve the racialproblems of the world; we are asked to hand over a territory whose people havesaid here that their position is that of helots, that they are foreigners in the landthat gives them birth, whose toil makes its wealth.

I DO NOT WISH TO SUBSCRIBE TO ANY OF THE VIEWS THAT HAVEBEEN PUT FORWARD as to how this partition line would work because I thinkthis whole idea is evil in its conception, it is evil in its description and evil in itsconsequences. But if you look at it, you will find that the sea-board of SouthWest Africa, all of its territory, its great mineral wealth - they are all going to beannexed. There are some 50,000 non-indigenous people in South West Africaand a considerably large number of others. No one has suggested that thisterritory should be distributed proportionately. I am not saying I would have youagree to that, but no one has suggested that. What is suggested is a kind ofequality; one chicken, one horse. Therefore, in considering this question we aretaking into account the fate of these people; and not only the fate of these people- I hope that the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom will bear with me -but if anything should happen to this territory by some adverse wantonness or bysome extra-constitutional action to bring it under the Union, what happens tothose innocent people of Bechuanaland, whom the protection of the British Crownhas kept away from obvious and extreme apartheid, who enjoy comparativelyhuman conditions, and the territory of South Africa should spread into these areas,

and industrialisation drag from these other areas peoples who will come under thisinhuman tyranny. Therefore, the whole of this report of the Good OfficesCommittee is ultra vires in the sense that no committee appointed by thisOrganisation can conceivably have the right even to entertain propositions that area violation of the Charter. And I submit the basis of this consideration is aviolation of the Charter; it is disregard of the United Nations.

IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO GO INTO VERY MANY LEGAL ASPECTSOF THIS CASE. My colleagues will deal with other aspects of the question ofSouth West Africa. Mr. Chairman, it is sufficient for the day to say that there isno reason at all why these territories should not be placed under Trusteeship. Thestrongest argument one sometimes hears in various circles is that the WorldCourt’s advisory opinion has said, or rather a majority opinion has said, that thereis no legal obligation on the part of South Africa to place this territory undertrusteeship. It would be wrong, if I may say so, to quote three summarisingparagraphs of this minute without reading the whole of the judgement. What doesit say in regard to question B? - that the provisions of Chapter XII of the UnitedNations Charter do not impose on the Union of South Africa a legal obligation toplace the territory under the trusteeship system. I submit, Mr. Chairman, a legalobligation in the sense of the interpretation of legal texts - perhaps not. Butcertainly there is placed upon the Union of South Africa a Charter obligation. Iam not referring to a moral obligation, but a Charter obligation. The Charterplaced the obligation. Now in this matter a great play is made of the use of theword "may" in the relevant article of the Charter. There again I have not theadvantage of reading other translations of this article. I turn to Article 75 of thewhich reads: "shall establish under its authority a trusteeship system for theadministration and supervision of such territories as may be placed thereunder bysubsequent individual agreements."

These territories are, hereafter, referred to as Trust Territories. I submit Mr.Chairman, that this ‘may’ is merely an expression of simple futurity. And when itcomes it will be so placed, this is not the intention. The reason for this is that theterritories that come under trusteeship are not contemplated to be only those thatwere mandated, but others as well. And that is the reason for this `may', becausein other cases - in cases of territories not under mandate - it must be purely avoluntary choice, because they are not under any kind of trusteeship.

If a kind of sacred trust prevails in the world, and the people who are one of theparties to the sacred trust are member States and the other party, the people overwhom the trusteeship is exercised, are the humanity of the world covered by theCharter, covered by the Declaration of Human Rights, covered by internationallaw, covered by ordinary decency, then I think that the trusteeship organ whichhas lapsed or is reincarnated in this form becomes a legitimate recipient. What ismore, the trusteeship system provides for agreements of different characters; and Isubmit, Mr. Chairman, whatever strong views one may hold, we would be the last

people to object if South Africa came here to conclude a trusteeship agreement ofa character different from those existing in regard to Tanganyika or WesternSamoa, or New Guinea or Marshall Islands. She is entitled to do so. But, Isubmit, she has a Charter obligation to enter into a trusteeship agreement, and thissecond paragraph of question B in the majority opinion (of the International Courtof Justice) should not be extracted from the context of the opinion. For, in otherparts of the same opinion, on page 144 (Question C) for example, it is stated that"the Union of South Africa, acting alone, has not the competence to modify theinternational status of the territory of South West Africa." So, in this very opinionof the World Court, which has by a majority of 8 to 6, said that there is no legalobligation to place the territory under trusteeship, it is also said that changes ofstatus must be with the permission of the United Nations.

Now you may well say, nobody is changing the status. I prefer to leave alone atthe moment the characterisation of the Union Government’s position as concedinginternational "character" - not status - to the territory, but that is not the issue.

I SUBMITTED TO YOU, SIR, THE CONCEPTION OF MY GOVERNMENTas to the content of the status, and, therefore, further submit that this modificationhas already taken place. Modification has taken place, or would take place ifthere were no accountability. The South African Government finds itself in theposition in which the former kind of accountability is not taking place. And sinceit may not, acting alone, change the territory's status, then it must resort to othermethods of accountability; and if it must resort to other methods of accountability,then it must come before the United Nations. Therefore, while paragraph 2 of thispage (page 144 of the opinion of the International Court of Justice) is correct in avery limited way, the Charter obligation turns up because the Union may notchange the status of the territory. And if she does not continue to be accountable,then she changes the status and thereby she violates the mandate and she violatesthe principles of the Charter. On the other hand if she wants not to change thestatus, but at least maintain status quo, then she has to accept accountability, andaccountability can only be to those who are here today in the world. In order tomaintain the status quo, the Union has got to accept some form of accountabilityand, therefore, to make use of this Organisation for that purpose in one form oranother.

There could be no objection - I am not expressing an opinion of my Government -there will be no objection to the argument, to looking at this proposition if theUnion Government came and said: we do not like these new-fangled ideas of yourtrusteeship agreements, which are bilateral agreements, contracts entered into; weare prepared that the United Nations should step into the shoes of the League ofNations and accept the mandate of South Africa as it stands, and merely alter thewords "League of Nations" into "United Nations"; and it will be up to the UnitedNations to set up its own Mandates Commission.

But the plans which are aired in this report - I do not want to be unfair, nor do Iwant to overstate the case of Sir Arden-Clarke - would provide for the setting upof a South West Africa Council, and then having a Mandates Commissionselected for South West Africa. The South West Africa Council would have threepermanent members - and those three permanent members have a particularcharacter. Thus administering or ruling Powers would select the MandatesCommission. Therefore the tribunal before whom this question will go, who willbe investigating reports and informations concerning the administration of theterritory, will be hand-picked by a body consisting of three permanent membersfrom among the Allied and Associated Powers on the one hand, and on the other,two others elected not by the General Assembly, but by these three. Apart fromthe jarring note produced in all democratic conceptions, this method whereby onthe one hand will be put three people, who have no basis in this matter at thepresent time, to select two other; and then these five to select a sub-committeecalled the Mandates Commission would imply a degree of indirect representation,which even 200 years ago would have been considered rather autocratic.

So far as this particular report is concerned, we deeply regret that nothing fruitfulhas come out of it. We regret that even such a person as Sir Arden Clarke, and hiscolleagues, approaching the South African Government has not been able to getany further than the statements of the Union Government made in this countryand in this Organisation. To the extent they got further is the blatant, unqualifiedrequest for the amputation of this territory and the surrender of it for colonialgreed. That is to say, we are invited to be parties to colonial degradation; we areinvited to be parties to the internationalising of this infamous doctrine ofapartheid. We are asked to sanctify the violation, the profaning of the sacredtrust, which has been placed in their hands. We are asked to disregard all thestatements made by President Wilson and by General Smuts, Article 22 of theCovenant, and the Covenant of the League of Nations itself. We are, what ismore, asked to forswear our own existence, to disregard ourselves as a worldorganisation which has made provisions for the looking after of these populationsthat are not yet mature for self-government.

FROM THE POINT OF WHAT MAY BE CALLED THE SOCIAL OR MOREMATERIAL CONDITIONS OF LIFE, we have had the evidence not only of thepeople who have come before us as petitioners, but of various documentssubmitted to us, that though 38 years have elapsed since this territory was placedunder Mandate, these conditions have deteriorated. And do not let us forget that amandatory is placed over these mandated areas because the mandatory is superiorin civilisation. It so happens that the people of South West Africa are thechampions of freedom; they are undergoing sacrifices, they have to face themusic, they take the risks of rebellion, they take the risks of protest. Are they themore advanced people or the people who deny them their freedom? The SouthWest Africans are receiving into their community people of a differentcomplexion, people of a different race. They work for these people, but the

position cannot be reversed. So, let us ask ourselves as people who have pledgedfaith to the principles of the Charter: where does the incidence of civilisation, so-called, lie? - with the people who take those risks in order to obtain freedom, orwith the people who use power and influence in order to suppress freedom?

We are told that there is no slavery in South West Africa, but those of you whocare could read the report of the International Labour Organisation on ForcedLabour. It says that there is forced labour in the Union of South Africa and thereis forced labour in the territory of South West Africa. The Mandates, either byimplication or otherwise, did not permit special privileges for any member of theLeague of Nations. The trusteeship agreements also do not admit of any suchprivileges. But the report of the International Labour Organisation to which Ireferred, Sir, reveals a different picture.

The whole basis of the Union’s argument is that everything must necessarily beyoked to the interests of the Union of South Africa. My Government, mycountry, the people of our country wish prosperity to South Africa, and webelieve that prosperity, power and strength will be increased by the liberation ofthese large numbers of people, by the exploitation of the wealth of this land in theinterest of the people as a whole, by the removal of this pernicious doctrine whichdivides man from man and creates a class of chosen people to rule over others.Only a few years ago the world went to the cataclysm of war to overthrow thatdoctrine.

THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERING THIS REPORT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I onceagain say: we are not merely considering just an item on the agenda - each itembeing as important - we are here considering the whole question of human rights,the question of freedom, the question of going back in our tracks on the liberationfrom colonial system, which the aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles produced inthe mandates system and which ultimately became advanced in the trusteeshipsystem. We are also considering whether one country, one member State, cancome here and say: you are not doing enough for us; we will resurrect the Alliedand Associated Powers. Are we going to create a parallel organisation, whenthere is already so much division, so much difficulty even in our ownOrganisation? The universality of this Organisation is challenged. Then thesanctity of the Charter is challenged. We are called upon to internationalise - Irepeat this again, to internationalise - this infamous doctrine of apartheid. MyGovernment will therefore, in no way, subscribe to any of these proposals.

As to the approach to be made in this matter, there is only one way. The time willcome when the spirit of man will free itself in the continent of Africa. Whetherhe be black, white, blue, yellow, brown or of any other colour, he will establishthe freedom on the basis of which humanity can progress. We are therepresentatives of free governments. We should not in any way subscribe to turnthe clock back, and put people in the conditions of slavery. This is not a market;

this is not a slave-market, where a government can come and say: you give usthree-quarters of this territory, and we shall not look for the other one. This is, if Imay say so, the most objectionable form of bargaining.

I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT IT SHOULD NOT BESUFFICIENT to analyse this problem. My Government will be prepared to takeinto account the fact that South Africa may want to stick to the letter of the lawand say: the Mandate - and no farther. Yes, why not the Mandate? There isenough in the Mandate. It may not be as explicit, as well-worded. And yet thereis enough in the Mandate to carry out the principle of accountability; there isenough in the Mandate to enable close examination of the administration of theterritory; there is enough in the Mandate for the fresh winds of world publicity togo into reactionary methods and inhuman ways of treating people. Machineryshould be set up so that the United Nations side is concerned, that is our business.That is to say, the Mandate - the texture of the Mandate - ought to be transferredto the United Nations (and the words "United Nations" should be substitutedwherever the word "League" appears), and then it would be for the UnitedNations, without disregard for the obligations in relation to South Africa, underthe terms of the Covenant and of the Charter, to produce the machinery whichwill take care of the doctrine of accountability, and of the progressing of thispeople in conditions of freedom.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we submit that the Assembly as a whole,unanimously, both in this committee and in the plenary session, should refuse tocountenance this report, and demand from the South African Government, appealto them to take into account the wails, the appeals and the cries that come fromthe suppressed peoples of South West Africa. And who today would use thewords against freedom, that are used in a memorandum of the South AfricanGovernment? Only this morning, at the Trusteeship Council, we had the pleasureof hearing the distinguished delegate of France who told us of a great event, of themarch of progress taking place in Togoland. The Prime Minister of the newTogoland is the man who was petitioning before us a year ago. So, the petitionerof today is the administrator of tomorrow. Changes can take place, even in SouthWest Africa. For the last thirty years, the changes have been in one direction, but,of course, the bottom will be touched some day and there will be a change,because the spirit of men cannot be crushed, whether he be African or of someother continent. And there are large number of people in Africa, not merelyindigenous populations, people who helped to build the economy of the country,people who come from your country, Sir, and from other countries, from liberaltraditions, and who are as opposed to this system as any others. The duty of theUnited Nations, of world public opinion, is to lend support to these great moralforces that exist in the world in order that the freedom of man may grow frommore to more.

Statement in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, October 23,

195929

(When the General Assembly resumed consideration of the question of South WestAfrica in 1959, it had before it a report by the Good Offices Committee that itsdiscussions with the South African Government had not succeeded in finding abasis for an agreement. The Committee on South West Africa had submitted anextensive report on conditions in the territory, expressing grave concern at recentdevelopments.

The representative of the Union of South Africa reiterated that his Governmentwould not accept any authority of the United Nations in respect of South WestAfrica.

After discussion, the Assembly adopted six resolutions. In resolution 1360 (XIV)of November 17, 1959, it invited the Union Government to enter into negotiationswith a view to placing the territory under the International Trusteeship System. Italso requested the Union Government to formulate proposals to enable theterritory to be administered in accordance with the principles and purposes of theMandate, with the supervisory functions being exercised by the United Nations.)

... We start this year’s debate on the basis of the report of the Good OfficesCommittee we reappointed at the thirteenth session. The Chairman of thatCommittee commands the respect of the Trusteeship Committee. He commandsthe respect of the rest of the Assembly. He has a great record in standing up forhuman rights, for the liberties of people, and his country stands also as anexample of democratic institutions and of the insistence upon carrying out theprinciples of the Charter. The findings of the report of the Committee now beforeus are regrettably, failure. It says: "The Committee regrets to inform theAssembly that it has not succeeded in finding a basis for an agreement under itsterms of reference." Now this is a very carefully worded sentence. It says "it hasnot succeeded," which is a little different from saying, "it has failed." In otherwords, that is to say, that it can make a further effort.

Secondly, it says, "an agreement under its terms of reference." That might meanthat it is an invitation to us to examine these terms of reference, if necessary.Now, the Good Offices Committee could probably have been of a greater potencyif some of the other member States, who perhaps would not take exactly the sameview as most members on this Trusteeship Committee, had found it possible toshare our views in this matter. That may well be the position, let us hope, thisyear or next year or the year after.

29 Source: Foreign Affairs Record, New Delhi, October 1959

Now, coming to the basic positions: the Union view is - and we must not miss thisfact - the Union still speaks in terms of a ‘new look’ or ‘new approach’ that is saidto have been created by statements made in 1957. However cynical some peoplemight be, I think it will be unwise to throw this out of the window. When theUnion Government says that its attitude is in conformity with the spirit of the newapproach and the resolution which was agreed to by a large majority in 1957 wemay profoundly disagree with the Union’s interpretation, but we do not disagreewith the fact that in recognising the new approach there may be subconsciouslythis desire that there should be a new approach. Therefore, whatever little supportthere is in this difficulty we have to catch up and persuade the UnionGovernment, particularly through States who are nearer to it than weunfortunately are; we should try and make some progress.

We may not be led away either by the feelings that may be aroused in us by thevery authentic, from our point of view very authentic, and moving stories weheard - not stories in any fictional sense - moving descriptions we heard from thepetitioners who appeared before us, by the information we have from thedocuments before us, such as the reports of the Good Offices Committee and theCommittee on South West Africa or the provocative observations of thedistinguished chairman of the Union delegation. These are incidents in theresolving of a problem which is so complex, which is rooted in the desires ofstrong people to maintain their strength and the weak to break the power ofrepression. That has been the history of all nations in the world; and if all of uswere to carry with us only the remembrance of the wounds and the scars thatstruggle has left upon them, it will not be necessary for us to move to a peacefulworld.

NOW THE UNFORTUNATE PART OF THIS IS that while the UnionGovernment has reminded the Committee that it has reiterated its willingness toreach an agreement, the agreement it wants to enter into is with what it calls thesurviving Allied and Associated Powers. It is difficult to know who the Alliedand Associated Powers are. In the strict terms of international law, India wouldbe one of the Allied and Associated Powers, because partly we are signatories tothese agreements or treaties signed at that time on behalf of the British Crown.The five Dominions of that time were part of the Allied and Associated Powers.The United States is one of the Allied and Associated Powers; and, no doubt,therefore, the States associated with her, such as Puerto Rico perhaps, and others,may also come in under similar interpretation. France is an Allied and AssociatedPower and, therefore, Guinea would be able to take its place in the same way aswe do, as one of the Allied and Associated Powers. So, if I may say so with greatrespect, the South African Government would be in no better position if itsummons the Allied and Associated Powers, because there will be a large numberof members of this family, who at that time were not regarded as legitimate butare now legitimate; and, therefore, today the Union would be in no better position

vis-a-vis the Allied and Associated Powers than it would be vis-a-vis the UnitedNations. On the other hand, I feel sure that the country of Field Marshall Smutsand the Government that succeeded his Government would not want to pleadbefore us that in 1959 they want to resurrect the ghost of the League of Nations -the League of Nations that foundered in its incapacity to meet the rapacity of thewar elements in the world; they would not want to resurrect that! Nor would theywant to go back from their own point of view into the commitments of Allied andAssociated Powers.

We, on our part, would be very happy if the South African Government wouldhold to commitments made in Geneva at the time of the negotiations in regard tothe Mandates and no one could have made more radical, more fundamental, morefar-reaching statements - statements which cut into the position today held by theUnion, than the distinguished former Prime Minister of South Africa...

The other condition the Union makes, in order to find a settlement, is to partitionSouth West Africa. Now partition has now become a well-known imperialdevice. In the old days the Empire ruled territories by dividing their populations.From times of the Roman Empire, empires have followed the principle: divideand rule. Now in the post-war years the fashion seems to be: divide and leave.They divided our country and left it; they divided our people and left them. So itis divide and leave. So now division seems to be the position. Now, I would likethe Assembly, however, to look at this problem of partition from another point ofview. Partition is only one aspect of it; the proposal is not to partition in order tocreate two independent units of South West Africa. Partition is another name forannexation. Partition means cut the country up, take all the good part andamalgamate it with the Union and leave the remainder, if you want, to experimentwith trusteeship. Those are some of the aspects of this problem of partition.

So partition should not be viewed merely as partition. After all, there is noobjection to partition as such, there being other things to compensate for it. Thereare many nations sitting around here today, which a hundred years ago were partsof much larger units, whether they be Austro-Hungarian Empire, or any otherempire, not to speak of the British Empire. As I said, there is no objection topartition if it were intended to take off the parts which have become matured inorder that they may express themselves or rule themselves better. But partition isonly the other name for annexation. Now the motive, the purpose, the politicalpurpose, and indeed there is no secret about it, is to integrate and take over thericher part of South West Africa which contains all the diamonds.

I think poor people like ourselves must pray, must wish that there were nominerals under the earth in our country, for they attract civilisation. The mineralsof a country give that country its name, but they are exploited by, they belong to,somebody else. That is the experience of our colleagues in Ghana. So, thispartition means the amalgamation of the richer part of Africa with all its greatmineral wealth and with the most salubrious climate - there is one way of finding

in Africa where the climate is agreeable: that would be where the whitepopulations live. I remember distinctly the debate that went on about East Africawhen the first Labour Government took office in England. The then ColonialSecretary, who had come under attack at that time, had said that the high landswere for the whites and the low lands for the others - he did not use the expression"the others," he said something else which I do not wish to repeat. So the highlands are for the white. There it is. So the high lands, the most salubrious placesof occupation in the great riches of South West Africa, will be amalgamated withthe Union.

There is another aspect which we should look at. Supposing the United Nationsby an act of unwisdom agreed to partition, or supposing by force majeuresomething was inflicted, then what happens? In South West Africa develops anempire, the empire is extended to this territory on the one hand of which there isthe Union of South Africa which proclaims the doctrine that its survival is onlypossible, as in the case of Sparta, by the liberty of 300 out of 300,000. On theother side of it stands the Portuguese dominion of Angola; and on the top of itstands Bechuanaland, in a very tender spot and a very tender position at the mercyof the great forces of these two States. A little above is the Central AfricanFederation, which is taking very good lessons from the Union and following theexample, indeed as a pupil should. And there lies to the east coast the territory ofNyasaland, about which out of courtesy and tenderness to our colleagues of theUnited Kingdom I say very little...

HERE I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK A LITTLE BACK at the history. The Unionof South Africa was the only country in the inter-war years which disregarded theprinciples of the Mandate, Japan following soon after in regard to the PacificIslands. The Union of South Africa conferred union citizenship on the people ofSouth West Africa in 1923. She had no business to do so, because it was not herterritory. At that time the people protested, and the Mandates Commission had agreat deal to say about that action of the Union. So, this idea of annexation hasalways been in their minds.

I do not speak of annexation in the sense of bare naked conquest. They (theUnion) profoundly believe, probably, that the best interest of civilisation is servedby the doctrine of apartheid, by the kind of government they have; after all wehave heard the petitioners saying that there are some good hospitals. Thereforethey probably think that under the system of partition there will be some goodhospitals even though for a few people only. The point is that these ideas ofannexation have always been with them, and you may remember, Mr. Chairman,that in 1946 in London and afterwards here the Union Government, before theTrusteeship Committee, said that they were going to submit proposals to theUnited Nations for the annexation, or rather for what is called making thisterritory as integral part of the Union. The integral part clause appears in severalTrusteeship Agreements concluded by the United Kingdom and by France, but

with very good qualifications. It reads to the effect that a certain territory "shall beadministered as though it were an integral part etc." "As though it were integralpart," in English, means that it is not an integral part. But in the case of SouthAfrica the Union wants to reverse this.

I do not say this just to give the history and take up your time, but it is necessaryto understand how deep-seated are their views and where they lead to, and,therefore, it is not sufficient to deal with them merely on the surface. The SouthAfrican Union has always looked upon the mandated territory, apart from thestatements of General Smuts and other more liberal element in South Africa aspart of colonial conquest. Their attitude reminds me of a Japanese representativeof Naga regime, who at one time is reported to have said, when it was pointed outthat the fortification of the South Sea Islands was against the Mandate - I do notvouch for the statement: Mandates - What! President Wilson would not allow usto call anything by its proper name in 1921, and therefore we call them Mandates.And that might have been the Union’s view also.

My position is confirmed by all that we have heard, by the information we do notget, and by the implications of the small information that came from the expert ofthe Union delegation, who very kindly spoke to us. All these point to the fact thatthe picture in South West Africa today is that of a colonial empire. This pictureexists in 1959 and not in 1919...

FROM THE GOOD OFFICES COMMITTEE WE GO ON to the South West

Africa Committee30...

For four decades the administration of South West Africa has been conducted bythe Union under the mandates system, whose guiding principle is that the well-being and development of the territory’s inhabitants form a sacred trust ofcivilisation. And what has the Committee on South West Africa to say? Its reporttells us that the Union of South Africa has failed and continues to fail to carry outthe obligations it undertook to promote to the utmost the material and the moralwell-being and the progress of the inhabitants of the territory. "The Committee,"the report continues, "has become increasingly disturbed at the trend of theadministration in recent years, and at the apparent intention of the mandatoryPower to continue to administer the territory in a manner contrary to theMandate," - here I would like to interpolate that the South African Governmenthas publicly proclaimed that it has no desire to go against the Mandate - "theCharter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, theadvisory opinions of the International Court of Justice, and the resolutions of theGeneral Assembly."

30 The Committee on South West Africa was established by the General Assembly in 1953 tocontinue negotiations with South Africa - conducted earlier by an ad hoc committee - and toexamine available information and petitions on South West Africa.

I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is it possible for any member State of the UnitedNations to go against more injunctions than this catalogue that has been recordedby the Committee on South West Africa. Therefore this again we point out to theUnion, not in the sense of what the distinguished foreign minister once beforecalled the pillorying of the Union but in order that it be known to their people whoin their limited democracy, profess to a democratic way of life and where publicopinion matters, even though only among a small part of the population.

I have an interesting anecdote about this, Mr. Chairman. In 1921, the League ofNations was discussing the populations of the world. Each country was asked togive its population figure. The distinguished delegate of the Union at that timesaid that it was one and a half million. The delegate of India said that he thoughtthere were some Africans there too. "Oh, 8 million; you mean the Africans."

But in the context of their own limited democracy, there is a parliamentaryopposition, there are free churches; there is freedom of worship and, what is more,there is increasing industrialisation. No country in the world, be it the Union ofSouth Africa or any other country, will be able to resist the impact, the powerfulforce of industrial labour in the days to come. I say this with no desire to interferein the internal affairs of South Africa.

The Union has another inhibition. On the one hand it says that it intends tonegotiate with the United Nations, but on the other it is unwilling to come to anagreement with the United Nations, as the second party. Now, this is rather astrange insistence for the sake of prestige or for the sake of saving face. Mycountry, so far as possible, does not hold to this doctrine of what is called savingthe face. Very often people in saving faces, lose their heads. In this case, whenthe Good Offices Committee says that the negotiations must be with the UnitedNations as a party, it is basing itself on one of the three doctrines on which theadvisory opinion of the Court has given common conclusions, both in respect ofthe majority judgement, and also the various minority judgements. Therefore,negotiation with the United Nations as a party is agreed upon by everyone almoston all sides except by the Union, and, therefore, we readily hope that the memberStates who are closer in their emotional and political relations to them, would beable to persuade the Union of the rather invidious position that will arise if theUnion of South Africa, which must claim for itself a great contribution in theformulation of the Charter, including its racial provisions, would want todisregard the United Nations. Even today, South Africa has admitted that thisterritory has international status. Are they now going to say that status has not tobe negotiated with this world body, of which the Union is a member, and inregard to which there are no rivals at present in the world?...

ARISING FROM THIS DEBATE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE FOUR ORFIVE MAIN THINGS which we have to consider. Among them are thestatements made by the petitioners; and here I am sure neither my Asian or

African colleagues nor the petitioners themselves nor anyone else who holds aradical view on this question, will think that I am in any way guilty of derogationof the petitioners’ case before us. It may be granted for argument’s sake that apetitioner, a person who makes a representation, is probably likely to present oneside of the case more than the other; that is the worst that can be said. But whathas been said by the petitioners - not one of them, not only the 8 or 9 who camehere but also in the large numbers of other written petitions that we haveexamined - even if 10 percent of all that was said were true, if 10 percent of thatrepresented the facts, then I think a case of maladministration prevailing in theterritory contrary to the provision of Mandate has been established. Therefore, itis not necessary for us, in my opinion, to examine every word or every syllable ofthe petitions. It should suffice generally to take the broad outline of thepresentation.

It is an important fact that tribal chiefs and others who are in suppression in SouthWest Africa still have great faith in this Organisation and still want to sendpetitions to it. It is also important to remember that those men who have comebefore us, particularly of non-African origin, have taken very considerable risks inobtaining information, not newspaper stories for any publicity for themselves.They have come before us in a serious way; they have taken very considerablerisks to make, shall we say, a little split in this curtain - I do not say whatparticular colour this curtain is - on South West Africa. They have done a serviceto their own country and to the United Nations as a whole by bringing about whatis sought to be achieved in the Charter as freedom of information. I would like tosay on behalf of my delegation that we owe a debt of gratitude to these men, whoat a great risk to themselves and with great restraint have presented the case ofSouth West Africa before us. Their statements along with other material form thenatural basis of our judgement.

Another set of factors, which we have to examine, is the juridical position, rightsand obligations in the context of this particular problem. And yet another factor iswhich I purposely put in another category, the Charter provisions, which are ofmore than juridical importance because they lie at the root of the foundations ofthe United Nations and involve great moral and ethical issues. I cannot say thatjuridical issues are often divorced from moral issues but they are not coterminus.

Mr. Chairman, besides all this there are three proposals before the Assembly.One comes from our neighbouring country of Nepal, another from Mexico andthe third from Iran. These I propose to refer to at a later stage.

AT THIS TIME, THOUGH IT IS A VERY OLD, HARDY PROPOSITION, it iswell for us to go very briefly into the background of this problem. South WestAfrica, like many other countries, came into the pale of the modern civilisation inthe context of imperial conquest. There was a time when the British Empire didnot want to have any part or lot of it. There were several occasions when

missionaries and traders asked for protection but the Government of the 19thcentury England said that it did not want to get involved in these matters.Fortunately that was the time of little Englanders; they expanded afterwards andnow they are not so little. At any rate, at that time Britain did not go and conquerthis place. By the middle of the nineteenth century the German connection withthis territory had been established in an unofficial way and, as it happened inthose years, the local chieftains - I do not suppose they consulted their populations- made agreements with them and gave them hospitality. This was not the firsttime that things happened in that way. I have read in history of an incident in myown home town, where I was born, where the emissary of a great country visitedin 1498, landed on that coast and visited the ruler of that time, who showered himwith presents and honours and the result was that he took away 1200 inhabitantsto his home country and we never heard of them afterwards. Anyway thePortuguese entered this territory and the other parts of Africa which they nowhave as parts of their colonial empire...

In 1883 a merchant of Bremen obtained from the Hottentot chief, JosephFrederick of Bethany a cession of land, later known as Luderitz Bay. Bismarck,still unconverted to a colonial policy - he was still a school boy in the imperialbusiness - caused the British Government to be informed beforehand - they calledBritain the elder brother - of the protectorate in words that were almost aninvitation to Great Britain to assume sovereignty over the territory. Thisopportunity, like the previous one, was allowed to slip away and in April 1884Bismarck took the initiative and assured Luderitz and his establishments ofGerman protection. The protection is a funny word, Mr. Chairman. You know,under the Treaty of South East Asian Treaty Organisation, your country and mineare under protection even though we did not ask for it! Below the 28th parallel,or whatever it is, protection is just like the sun which rises and sets without ourknowing it.

To continue with the historical account belated attempts by the British and CapeGovernments - i.e., the South African Government of the time - to retrieve thesituation were unavailing. In the latter part of the 19th century however theEmpire had come into existence; by 1857 India had passed under the Crown andthe Empire as such had taken shape. But belated attempts by the British and CapeGovernments to retrieve the situation in southern Africa were unavailing, and indue course protection over German traders developed into full-fledged Germanannexation of the whole territory...

The first German representative sent to this territory - he does not bear a goodname in the present context - was His Excellency Goering. He was succeeded byKurt von Francois - that was also not a good name, the first part I mean. Hetransferred the capital from somewhere to somewhere. It was there that the firstGerman farmers settled in 1892. And unlike most of us these farmers were veryindustrious people. In 1893 there was trouble with Hendrik Witbooi, and theHottentot chiefs. I suppose he did not like this man going into his farm. I believe

it happens in the Middle West over here that people going into the farm are notliked. The Germans attacked this man’s village and 150 of his subjects, includingwomen and children, were killed. It could be argued of course that these subjectshad no human rights and therefore somebody was trying to impose inhuman rightsupon them. The Germans attacked this village and 150 of his subjects werekilled. Then Francois was succeeded by Theodor Leutwein, who tried to treat thenative population with consideration. You will find in the history of all empires itis always firmness plus the reverse, and the process goes on. It is the pendulum inall foreign rule. It is part of a policy, but when it goes too far the democracy athome starts biting.

So Theodore Leutwein found much cause for dissatisfaction and it required only aspark to set the country ablaze. The Bondelswaartz Hottentots rose in 1903. Thisrising was suppressed, but early in 1904 the Hereros revolted and killed a numberof German settlers, but not the British or the Boers. The rebellion was quicklyquelled but in the "cleaning up"- it is called "mopping up" now-a-days - in themopping up operations the Hereros were ferociously harried by General Trotha -this man’s successor - and were then reduced from a tribe of 80,000 people to15,000 starving refugees, many of whom found sanctuary in Bechuanaland, whichwas British territory and where liberal traditions prevailed and these people couldmove in there.

That, Mr. Chairman, is the background in which this territory starts its career inthe modern world. When we talk about sovereignty, we must recognise the factthat power was established not by legitimate rights but by conquest, which wasrecognised in those days. Then came the period of the Great War - the FirstWorld War - and German expansionism encountered the opposition, or rather thefirmness of the British Empire and its associates, and was defeated. But in yearsthat followed came another trouble - another invitation to civilisation! In theyears that followed these troubles, the depopulation resulting from the methodsused in suppressing the rebellion caused a labour shortage. The only thing thatdid not happen here was that the British Government not ruling this place, noIndian immigrants were sent like in South Africa... Labour shortage hamperedthe development of the territory. The discovery of diamonds in 1908 led to theconsiderable increase in European population which rose to nearly 15,000 by1913.

On August 6, 1914, that is two days after the declaration of the First World War,the Government of the Union undertook to assume all obligations resting upon theBritish regular garrison in South Africa... South Africa then sent a militaryexpedition of its own to German South Africa. I must say in fairness and inhistorical context this replacement of regular British garrison and the sending ofthe military expedition was part of the operations of the First World War againstthe enemy, Germany, and not against these people. Soon after the preliminaryoccupation of Luderitz Bay, the Boer rebellion interrupted these operations - thatis to say the Boer business had not come quite to a conclusion by that time. But

later the campaign against the Germans developed rapidly and successfully. InJanuary 1915 South African forces advanced into the country... after a campaignof swift movement in semi-desert and waterless country forced the surrender ofthe Germans on July 9, 1915. This is the war story.

Then came the end of the empire when the former territories of Germany andTurkey, which normally would have been the booty of war, came under thesystem of international tutelage. Thanks to the initiative of the AmericanPresident, who had entered the war with the promise of no annexations and noreparations, annexations did not take place and these territories, after a great dealof haggling and bargaining between victorious Powers, came under the System ofMandates. South West Africa became a "C" mandate, being regarded then as anundeveloped region - God knows why - because these people had been undercivilisation for at least six or seven hundred years before with their own tribalsystems and with their own ways of rule; they were civilised enough for theGerman missionaries on the one hand and the traders afterwards on the other toconclude treaties with them to acquire land! But they were not civilised enoughto be placed under "B" or "A" mandate! At any rate, South West Africa wentunder "C" mandate and that "C" mandate went to His Britannic Majesty and HisBrittanic Majesty made the Union responsible for its administration...

The purpose of this historical account, which I have given as briefly as I can, is topoint out, Mr. Chairman, that on the one hand the occupation originally wasforcible, but at the same time not forcible against the population; I want to be veryaccurate about this - not against the population but only against the Germans. Thewhole operation was in order to beat the enemy and having beaten him the bootyof war went to the community of nations as "sacred trust" and that "sacred trust"was transferred to the Union and, therefore, the Union’s title is only the Mandate.

If the Union were today to say that they are not bound by the obligations of theMandate, then the Union cannot take the benefits. If she must have the smooth,she must have the rough; if she must have the rough, she must have the smooth.If there are no obligations under the Mandate, there are no rights under theMandate either. Now if we take the Mandate away, what is left? In that caseSouth West Africa must come before the United Nations in the same way asAlgeria has come before the United Nations for the liberation of the suppressedpeople. But we do not see this as a colonial possession. In the interest ofhistorical accuracy, in the interest of the people of this State, and out of deferenceto the Union, therefore, it is a Mandated Territory, and if it is argued that theUnion has no obligations under the Mandate, then the whole basis of the Mandatedisappears: you cannot have it half and half...

ARTICLE 22 OF THE COVENANT SAYS: "To those colonies and territorieswhich as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty ofthe States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not

yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modernworld, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and developmentof such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for theperformance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant." That is Article22 of the League Covenant. It says further - "The best method of giving practicaleffect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted toadvanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or theirgeographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willingto accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories onbehalf of the League." If sovereignty rests in the Union there would be no"behalf." "Behalf" means some sort of agency, some sort of wardenship. Andtherefore sovereignty does not exist there. Here I would like to say that in theopinion of my delegation the Union of South Africa is an advanced nation -advanced nation in terms of economic position, or political power, or civilisation,as we generally understand it, or education etc. We not only admit that, we baseour position on this that she is an advanced nation capable of this administration.We do not contest its geographical position and we also think that she is best ableto undertake this responsibility. But that responsibility has to be exercised interms of the Mandate, which alone confers this privilege upon them.

If this were not sufficient - this is in the Covenant - General Smuts, who wasresponsible for this, has himself gone into this question of the Mandate. He says:

"The Mandatory State should look upon its position as of a great trust andhonour, not as an office of profit or a position of private advantage for it orits nationals. And in case of any flagrant and prolonged abuse of this trustthe populations concerned should be able to appeal for redress to theLeague, who should in a proper case assert its authority to the full, even tothe extent of removing the mandate, and entrusting it to somebody else, ifnecessary."

NOW WE COME TO THE PRESENT POSITION. While I do not wish theCommittee to be taken again into the petitioner’s case and what not, I do believe itmy duty just to refer to certain matters. These acts of administration are notindividual actions. My delegation does not take the view that there are in SouthAfrica large numbers of administrators who, like those in the Hitler regime whichhad professional sadists, went to inflict cruelty. We are only talking in terms ofcriticism or offering our comments on a system, not upon individuals. The SouthAfricans we come across, we have met, are people for whom we have highestrespect, but they are as well victims of the system as those whom they victimise.

The South West Africa Committee says:

"The Committee has shown in earlier reports that although theadministration of the territory has previously been characterised byseparate treatment of the different racial components of the population, the

adaptation of this situation to the policy of apartheid, the concept of racialsegregation and the separate development of the races as a permanentfeature of the structure of society has been intensified since the transfer ofNative administration from the territorial authorities to the Government ofthe Union of South Africa in 1955."

I think it is necessary to point out that we need not go far. There is the Declarationof Human Rights to which South Africa is a party where it says that people mustbe governed by the will of those who are being governed and so on. There is norepresentation of those large populations, for whose welfare the Union isresponsible, in the South West African legislature, or in the Union’s Parliament.The territory is represented, I believe, by six persons in the Lower House and fourin the Upper House of the Union Parliament and none of them belongs to theindigenous population nor has the indigenous population any vote. Therefore,there is no question even of a limited franchise. All non-Europeans in theterritory are prohibited by law from voting in the territorial elections. They arealso prohibited from being candidates for elections since membership in both theUnion Parliament and the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa is restrictedby law to Europeans... Therefore there is no question that this is nothing exceptwhat is comparable to a democracy of the Greek of Spartan days where 300people had all the rights and 300,000 did not. Then that is one part of apartheid.

The other is the system of Pass Laws which prevail in this territory. Pass Lawsare not just identification cards like those carried by citizens of the United Statesor any other country. I remember reading a judgement of a distinguished SouthAfrican judge, Justice Bloomfield, who said: "We (South Africans) have passedso many laws in our country so that when an African gets out of his house, hecommits a crime. He makes statutory offences." Now here are some of thesePass Laws! Any policeman may at any time call upon an African who hasattained the age of sixteen years to produce his reference book. If a referencebook has been issued to him but he fails to produce it because it is not in hispossession at the time, he commits a criminal offence and is liable to a fine notexceeding ten pounds or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month. Itis not so much the enormity of the punishment but the fact people should have tolive in this kind of terror and should have to identify themselves, on demand, inthe way under penal sanctions. Pass Laws are applicable only to one section ofthe population. In other countries we carry identifications equally applicable toeverybody. There are practices in other countries which we do not approve of. Imyself do not want my thumb impression taken by policemen but it is a normalthing of this country. That is, where it is the law they do it.

Another example of discriminatory legislation: Whenever the Governor-General,in his unfettered discretion deems it fit to issue the necessary proclamation, anAfrican who has been required by an order of Court to leave a certain area mustdo so, and no Court of Law may grant an interdict preventing such removal, normay appeal or review proceedings stay or suspend such removal, even when it has

been established beyond all doubt that the order of the Court was intended forsome other persons and was served upon him in error. You cannot even arguemistaken identity and the person in regard to whom the mistake is made has topay the penalty! I could read on in this way quite a lot but there is not the time todo so.

Now supposing, for instance, it were argued, as it may be arguable, that things arenot so bad; they could be worse as we were told so many times. But we still - as agovernment, as a people - still hold to the view that even good government is nosubstitute for people’s liberty. It is far better for people to have their own badgovernment than somebody else’s good government.

NOW WE COME TO THE JURIDICAL POSITION under the Covenant of theLeague under Article 22, much of which I have read out...

There are, Sir, two main sets of documentation coming from the InternationalCourt - one belongs to 1950 and the other to later periods - and I must place thewhole facts before you. There are parts of this judgement which probably willappear contradictory to one another...

Three questions were referred to the World Court:

1. Does the Union of South Africa continue to have internationalobligations under the Mandate for South West Africa and, if so, what arethose obligations?

2. Are the provisions of Chapter XII of the Charter applicable and, if so,in what manner, to the territory of South West Africa?

3. Has the Union of South Africa the competence to modify theinternational status of the territory of South West Africa, or, in the eventof a negative reply, where does competence rest to determine and modifythe international status of the territory?

And the answers to these questions were - 1. "The South African Union continuesto have the international obligations stated in Article 22" and then this answerproceeds to set out what those obligations are in regard to the Mandate and inregard to Chapter XII of the Charter. On the first question, the answer wasreached by 12 votes to 2. I do not want to read the names of the judges, that willnot be proper. By 12 votes to 2, the Court is of the opinion that "the Union ofSouth Africa continues to have international obligations stated in Article 22 of theCovenant of the League of Nations and in the Mandate for South West Africa, aswell as the obligation to transmit petitions from the inhabitants of that territory,the supervisory functions to be exercised by the United Nations, to which theannual reports and the petitions are to be submitted, and the reference to the

Permanent Court of International Justice to be replaced by a reference to theInternational Court of Justice in accordance with Article 7 of the Mandate andArticle 37 of the Statute of the Court." That is to say, that by a majority of 12 to2, the International Court advises the United Nations that under Article 22 of theCovenant the obligations remain with South Africa to transmit information andpetitions received from inhabitants, and that supervisory functions are to beexercised by the United Nations and also that any member of this Organisation,who was a member of the League of Nations, under Article 37 of the Statute ofthe Court and Article 7 of the Mandate, can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.

On question 2, i.e., are the provisions of Chapter XII of the Charter applicable,and, if so, in what manner, the answer is unanimously in the affirmative and theCourt has added: "The provisions of Chapter XII of the Charter are applicable tothe territory of South West Africa in the sense that they provide a means by whichthe territory may be brought under the Trusteeship System."

Now I haven’t the time to place it together with other statements that have beenmade, but what the Union has said is that the Mandate in that way cannot functionbecause the League has demised. But for want of time I could have placed beforeyou several statements in which South Africa has herself come here and said thatthey are prepared to honour these obligations. They were parties to the creationof the Trusteeship System, and General Smuts himself said that the TrusteeshipSystem was even superior to the Mandate. These are his words:

"The Trusteeship System is not only a substitute for the Mandate but evensuperior to the Mandate and takes these things over."

The International Court has also said that the Charter provides an alternative. Ifthe League has lapsed - it cannot be said that there is nobody whom one may payone’s taxes or who else will receive them. While it may be technically true thatthe United Nations cannot compel - it cannot compel anybody - to place territoriesunder trusteeship, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Italy and the UnitedStates, they all placed their former mandated areas under the trusteeship system,of their own free will. The same request was made to South Africa times withoutnumber and it was the understanding in 1946 - I remember the discussions at that

time31 - that there would be no difficulty in this matter. General Smuts had saidat the Conference in San Francisco which led to the establishment of the system:

"The principle of trusteeship is now applied generally. It applies to alldependent peoples in all dependent territories. It covers all of them, andtherefore an extension has been given to the principle of very far-reachingand important character. The application of these principles to colonies ofa large number of Powers will mean a general improvement ofadministration and the setting up of quite new ideals for many of the

31 Mr. Menon was a member of the Indian delegation to the second part of the first session of theGeneral Assembly in 1946.

dependent peoples in those colonies."

If the Union of South Africa is not at the present moment disposed to entertainour views, may we, in all humility, submit these documents, of probably thegreatest statesman South Africa has produced and one of the founders of theUnited Nations, for their attention. General Smuts also said at the same meetingthat "if these additions for the advancement of these dependent peoples,politically, socially, economically, are carried out, I have no doubt that the resultwill be very far reaching. The result will be that as both Sections ‘A’ and ‘B’(Chapters XII and XIII of the Charter) are applied to dependent peoples all overthe world, wherever a territory is inhabited by dependent peoples - peoples whoare not advanced to look after themselves, peoples who are still backward indevelopment one way or another, they will have the benefits of this newadministration."

General Smuts says that it will be for the United Nations Organisation to see thatdependent peoples get the benefits contemplated for them in the system. That isto say that General Smuts concedes, not only concedes but argues, the case ofsupervision.

In San Francisco General Smuts not only conceded, he was the advocate of theTrusteeship System with all its implications including the supervision by theUnited Nations and not by the Allied and Associated Powers or anybody else.Again, speaking here on November 4, 1946, before this very Committee, and Idistinctly remember this, General Smuts said that the Trusteeship Systemembodied in the Charter has taken the place the Mandate System occupied in theCovenant of the League of Nations. Therefore while the Court might have doubtswhether the United Nations is successor to the League of Nations or not, theSouth African Government of that time had no doubts whatsoever in that matter.This is what its representative, General Smuts, said about this system oftrusteeship.

"It is not only the successor to the Mandate System and is in manyrespects an advance and improvement upon it. The Mandate System dealtwith German and Turkish colonies after the Great War. The presentTrusteeship System has much wider scope and deals with all territories,whether or not they were under trusteeship or voluntary agreement."

The fundamental concept of the Trust itself, as that of the Mandate, is theadvancement of the inhabitants and their progress in social, economic andpolitical fields and this advance is to be with due regard to the wishes of theinhabitants of the territory. There is no record here, Sir, of any consultation of theinhabitants of the territory in the way that is meant in that position. I would haveliked to place more documentation before you, but most of us are familiar withthese things and the only purpose of placing them here again is to remindmembers of the Committee of the position as it is.

NOW ABOUT THE THREE PROPOSALS. One is the proposal of the Mexicandelegation. Naturally it is not a proposal to which we can object. But if SouthAfrica will agree to supervision by a body composed on the same pattern as theTrusteeship Council, it is very difficult to understand why there should bereplacement of the Trusteeship Council, but so far as the principle of it isconcerned we do not find any objection to it except, of course, that theTrusteeship Council is established by the Charter; and there must be some verygood reasons for its displacement. But, of course, if its composition is suitable -and I am sure that members of this Council, if their absence from a body of thatkind will assist in any way to bring this territory under Trusteeship, I am sure inthe general interest they will be prepared to do so - we have no objection on themerits as put in that way. But in principle it appears that if on the one hand youhave the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France and the Union(four) and on the other four elected members the purpose is merely to excludesome countries and that may create difficulties. But in any case it is anotherTrusteeship Council - Trusteeship Council "B" instead of the present TrusteeshipCouncil "A" and whether we have the power to create a thing like that, I do notknow.

Our friend from Nepal has suggested that we should send a fact-finding missionto South West Africa. We have no objection to that, but if the Union is notprepared to accept the authority of the United Nations and will not negotiate withit, then of course that creates a difficulty regarding the fact-finding mission. Butit appears to us, and I feel sure that my colleague from Nepal will agree, thatunder the Mandates System and, so far as the principle is concerned, under theTrusteeship System and under the statements made by General Smuts over hereon a particular point, the Mandatory Power cannot bar any member of the thenLeague of Nations and now the United Nations from having access to theseterritories. That is to say, in a Trust Territory the Administering Authority cannotcreate privileges for itself which it cannot afford to other members of the UnitedNations.

So, in our humble submission, it is open to any member of the United Nations,any Government, any State member of the United Nations to send out people, notnecessarily to fact-find but to visit these areas, so that our Organisation would beseized better of all these things. In any attempt of that kind we are not for amoment suggesting that we should create greater difficulties with regard to SouthAfrica by raising other issues which are unsettled. All we are saying is that evenif a fact-finding mission cannot come about in the way Nepal has suggested, itssubstance can be obtained by individual efforts on the part of membergovernments - and whether it is good thing or not it is for the Committee toconsider. We may make an appeal to member governments - particularly membergovernments who are more of persona grata with the Union than some of us maybe - to visit these areas so that the Committee can also feel that we are not being

influenced or coming to conclusions only on the basis of documents submitted bythe Good Offices Committee or the South West Africa Committee or by our ownpredilections or by previous history or by the petitioners, but by seeing forthemselves the picture that exists. The representative of Iran made anothersuggestion which, of course, also requires the consent of the Union. That again isthe position with regard to the proposal concerning the consultation of theinhabitants.

SOON I HOPE WE WILL COME TO THE STAGE OF SUBMITTINGRESOLUTIONS in this matter. We will not take any position and we would not,in any way, promote any activity which is intended, so to say, to pile upopprobrium on the Union. That is not our purpose. We would like not to submita resolution but to make some suggestions. It will be good thing if into theCommittee on South West Africa, the Union were elected as member. She wouldbe there; we could ask her questions; she could assist us. The Committee can beassisted by her presence in it, and what is more, the member from South Africa,who will sit on the South West Africa Committee, would not be barred fromgoing into the territory and in that way the South West Africa Committee willbecome more representative.

The second suggestion we would like to make is one that has been submittedbefore; we will make a request to the South African Government once again - notonly once again but as many times as may be necessary - to assist the UnitedNations in the solution of this problem and take the assurance that this is not anattempt to frame an indictment or to allocate blame or praise, but merely a step inthe progress of the United Nations under Article 76. We hope that the Assemblywill make an appeal to member governments first on the lines I mentioned a whileago and also to use their influence with the South African Government that thisquestion, which creates so much ill-feeling, takes so much time of thisCommittee, and creates on the one hand anticipatory and hopeful feelings in thepeoples of South West Africa and on the other a great emotional, almostevangelical division of this Organisation which if not justified would have certainconsequences - we hope that countries like the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates with their great influence all over the seven seas would be able to persuadethe South African Government, I do not say to see reason but to assist, not inorder to accept any of the arguments we have stated, not in order to accept anyresponsibility for misdemeanours but in order to fulfil the pledges given byGeneral Smuts to this Organisation.

The representative of South Africa who, for the first time, has given us details inregard to the administration of the territory, would have the opportunity to give itto the right channel and to the right source if he should come and sit in thisCommittee on South West Africa, or equally in the Trusteeship Council. Or ifthey are suggesting that South West Africa is a part of the colonial empire and theMandate has lapsed, then of course we, those of us who are ex-colonial people,

must go into another question, and as in the case of Algeria, demand theindependence of South West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we will be able, at this time, to pass through this Committeea resolution that is unanimous... We have been negotiating with the Union since1907. We have not lost patience, nor have the South Africans. South Africansand we are probably the most patient people in the world in regard tonegotiations! What is more, to South Africa we owe a great debt of gratitudebecause it nourished the Great Gandhiji in his earlier days and gave him the field -not gave him, he found the field - for his experiments and also for thedevelopment of the great personality that brought about the liberation of ourcountry and gave to the world the great gospel of establishing reconciliation andresolving conflict through means of non-violence. So, therefore, we do not losehope.

And in regard to this resolution that this Committee might adopt, it is our hopethat even if the Union cannot today vote for this, at least she will use her influencewith other people not to vote against it and, what is more, refrain from votingagainst it herself. So, for the first time, would have gone out of this Assembly aresolution in which South Africa is not being ordered to do anything, in whichSouth Africa is probably being asked not to accept anything to which she isopposed publicly, and, if I may say so, there is machinery provided here, whichdoes not hit her in the face. The South Africa Committee is not a partisancommittee; so far as my delegation is concerned we are prepared to move that theUnion be elected as a member of this Committee and I am sure all of us wouldagree to that, so that there will be a committee in which she herself sits, wheresome beginning can be made of the reality we hope for...

Our function here is reconciliation. This is the place where differences have to beharmonised and it is a great opportunity not only for the United Nations, but forsome of us who may have erred on the path through our enthusiasm, and forSouth Africa, most of all, for the first time in the history of the United Nations tocome forward and say that they would co-operate in establishing not somethingthat is new but something which their own leader - one of the founders of theUnited Nations - contributed in the Charter. It would give them the opportunity tocome before us, not merely as a party that has been pressed under the force ofpublic opinion, but in the awareness of the 14 years of debate, being reminded ofsome of its own commitments, being reminded of the history of the League ofNations, and knowing well that it is not possible to maintain or perpetuate theconditions that obtain in South West Africa today, also having before them theshadows of those thousands of Hereros and Hottentots who disappeared whenGermans came in. It is all part of history, and remembering all this I hope theUnion will break in new history and refrain from voting against the resolution thatis being submitted to the Assembly.

TOGOLAND UNDER BRITISH ADMINISTRATION


[Togoland, a former German colony, was brought under the mandates systemafter the First World War, and transferred to the Trusteeship System after theestablishment of the United Nations, with one part under British administrationand another under French administration. Britain administered its part ofTogoland as an integral part of Gold Coast.

In 1956, in a plebiscite organised by the United Nations, the territory underBritish administration voted for unification with neighbouring Gold Coast,shortly before the accession of Gold Coast to independence as "Ghana."

Mr. Menon made the following statement in support of the adoption of therecommendation of the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly to approveunification.]

It is a coincidence, and a happy one, that on this day, December 13, 1956, theGeneral Assembly is considering the final act in the culmination of one of thepurposes for which the Trusteeship System was established. It was on December13, 1946, that the United Kingdom on the one hand and the United Nations on theother signed a Trusteeship Agreement, and today is its tenth anniversary. No onearranged the business of this Assembly so that it should fall on this day, but itgives us the opportunity to recall, as one of my predecessors on this rostrum said,that in the comparatively short period of ten years there has been a developmentwhich is unique in the annals of the United Nations.

Today we see the end of that chapter begun by Western incursion into WestAfrica, first by the arrival of the Portuguese somewhere in the middle part of thefifteenth century. Happily for West Africa and the world, the Portuguese wereconquered by the Dutch and driven out of the place, otherwise we would probablybe told today that this part of West Africa was Portugal. Others followed, andfinally, in the early part of the seventeenth century almost at the same time as theBritish established the East India Company in India - on the Gold Coast theyestablished one of their so-called forts, again very similar to the Indianexperience. Since that time, Africa has felt the impact of Western civilisationthrough trade rivalry - and I am sorry to say that in the first instance both the tradeand the rivalry were in the matter of the slave trade.

32 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Eleventh Session, Plenary Meetings, pages682-86

Then we come to more modern times whereby, in 1850 or so, on the Gold Coastthe suzerainty of the British Crown was sought to be established. We are today inthis Assembly considering in terms of law the future of the Trust Territory ofTogoland under British administration, but it is important to consider this questionapart from the factor of the Gold Coast, because the whole position taken by theUnited Nations rests on the fact that, once it has approved the independence andpolitical future of the Gold Coast, it is not just the independence of the Gold Coastthat is at stake, but it includes the emergence of the Togoland people as anindependent territory.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the Germans in their policy ofexpanding imperialism settled in this part of West Africa and called it Togoland. Ithink it is important to remember this because Togoland was no territorial entity;it was not even like the other territories of Africa. It was the aggregation under aninvading force of various tribal groups, the name being derived from the placewhere the Germans first landed. The impact of the First World War saw thecollapse of German hegemony and under the Treaty of Paris, the German territorywas divided almost equally between France and Britain. If the pattern of previousconquests had been followed, it would have become, both in law and in practice,part of the British and French empires, but happily, on account of the impact ofthe Wilsonian outlook on the peace treaties, the system of mandates wasestablished and this territory of which we are now speaking became a mandatedterritory under British administration.

Successive British administrators who have been responsible not only for thisterritory but for West Africa as a whole belonged to a more liberal school than theadministrators in other parts of Africa, and Togoland witnessed some progress,although that progress was very slow. In the meantime, in the neighbouringterritory of the Gold Coast, there had been policies of abandonment andresettlement over the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was only in 1901,after the seventh and last Ashanti war, when the Ashantis had been conquered,that the amalgamation took place.

I mention this to show that at no time did these West African people easily giveup their independence. But once that was established, there began a movementfor national liberation on the one hand, and on the other a movement of liberaladministration on the part of the imperial authority. At the end of the last war, theterritories under mandate were placed under the system established in the UnitedNations Charter, and the British administration offered - unlike the Union ofSouth Africa - that its mandate should be placed under a Trusteeship Agreement.

THAT IS THE SITUATION WE HAD ON DECEMBER 13, 1946. The presenthistory begins on June 21, 1954, when the United Kingdom Governmentinformed the Assembly that the objectives of the Trusteeship System had beensubstantially attained, and that it was not possible for it to administer Togoland in

the future as a Trust Territory.

It is worthwhile to recall that statement for several reasons. The first and mosthistoric reason is the fact that here is an imperial country to a very large extentsteeped in the attributes of empire, but also imbued with the traditions of liberaladministration, coming forward for the first time and saying: "We want to releasefrom tutelage these people whom we have governed as a colonial power andafterwards as custodians."

The second reason, from the point of view of the United Nations and thearguments and the reservations made, is even more important. The Britishauthorities came and told the United Nations: "We cannot administer this as aTrust Territory." Therefore the real question that we have to ask ourselves is:what are the alternatives? These would be, first, to make Togoland under Britishadministration a separate independent State; or, secondly, to hand over the trust tosomebody else and continue the tutelage, after someone who is qualified hasalready said to us that there is no need to keep these people under tutelage.

We argue this because, while there are so many fine points of law andjurisprudence to be argued, it should not be forgotten that the alternative to theprocedures we are now adopting would be to continue this territory under someform of subjugation. Therefore, after a great deal of discussion - and I want tointerpolate here that no question has received more consideration at the hands ofthe General Assembly or the Fourth Committee and the Trusteeship Council thanthe various aspects of the termination of this trusteeship - variousrecommendations have been adopted culminating, so far as the Assembly isconcerned, with the adoption of its resolution 860 (IX) in which it asked theTrusteeship Council to send out a Visiting Mission to Togoland under Britishadministration to take further steps in the implementation of the statement madeby the United Kingdom to the General Assembly.

The Trusteeship Council sent out a Visiting Mission charged with four particulartasks.33 This Mission recommended that a formal consultation with the people inthe form of a plebiscite should be held in order to ascertain the true wishes of thepeople as to the future of the territory and that, in taking this plebiscite, twoquestions should be asked: Do the people want integration of Togoland underBritish administration with an independent Gold Coast? Or do they want aseparation of Togoland under British administration from the Gold Coast and itscontinuation under trusteeship pending ultimate determination by the UnitedNations? These two questions are important not only for Togoland under Britishadministration but for the remainder of Togoland as a United Nationsresponsibility, because the General Assembly then decided - in resolution 994 (X)- that the answer must be ascertained by the free will of the people, obtainedunder United Nations auspices, and no other form of ascertainment wassufficient...

33 India was Chairman of this Visiting Mission.

The result of the plebiscite was that 58 per cent of the population voted forintegration with the Gold Coast, as it is called - and I think it is a ratherunfortunate expression - and 42 per cent against. There are many who thoughtthat this proportion was not sufficient to decide the future of such a Territory.But, as we pointed out in the Fourth Committee, there have been other instancesof such plebiscites, notably the one in Newfoundland, where only 52 per cent ofthe people voted for such integration.

Anyway, when we look into the figures, we find that the dissident opinion is theresult of the action of only one-seventh of the Trust Territory and one-seventeenthof the whole of the new State as it would arise. Therefore, when assessing theseresults, it is not sufficient for us to go just by the social and political implications.In other words, if there are other views or if the reservations and the doubts in theminds of the people continue, it should be borne in mind that all this is in relationto one-seventh of the territory, in the south of Togoland, and the others are all infavour.

But over and above that, soon after the plebiscite - it was not as though theplebiscite was a snap election - there were elections in the Gold Coast. Thoseelections also covered the Trust Territory, because, under the terms of theTrusteeship Agreement, the Administering Authority is not only permitted but hasthe full liberty to administer a Trust Territory as though it were an integral part ofsome other adjoining territory. So the elections may also be regarded as areference to the people. In those elections, out of an Assembly of 104 members...only two members representing Togoland separatism were returned. Therefore inthe present Assembly there are two members who represent the views of this one-seventh of the territory.

In the view of my delegation, when we consider the merits of the question, thealternatives that are possible or impossible, the real assessment of the opinion ofthe country or what is essential in order to further the purposes of the Charter, therecommendation made by the Fourth Committee - namely, that steps should nowbe taken for the integration of this Territory with an independent Gold Coast - isthe only possibility.

Here it is relevant, indeed it is necessary, that the Assembly should be quite surethat the independence of the Gold Coast is not hypothetical; and that it is not anindependence that is in any degree limited in its sovereign implications or in thesafeguards that minorities would have in this territory...

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS INFORMED THEGENERAL ASSEMBLY that the Gold Coast will be independent on March 6,1957. This in itself is a statement that the Assembly should heartily welcomebecause, unless other circumstances intervene - which we hope will not happen -

the Gold Coast will be a Member State of the United Nations soon afterwards...

Now the United Nations is being asked, in the context of this independence, totake the necessary steps for the relinquishment of trusteeship and for theattainment of independence by the people of Togoland. There are two matters towhich we would refer in this connection.

The first is that there have been before us during the last seven or eight yearsvarious representations about unification problems in the Trust Territoriesthemselves. The first of these came before us in the shape of the unification ofEwe tribe in the south and, for the information of the General Assembly, I shouldstate that the great majority of the Ewe tribe is in the Gold Coast itself. Anotherlarge slice is in Togoland under French administration, and the smallest part is inthe Trust Territory under British administration. Therefore, whatever arrangementmight be made for the creation of a tribal nation of the Ewes, that would beimpossible unless a slice of the Gold Coast was cut off, and that would not bepracticable. Therefore the Ewe unification problem has receded into thebackground.

We have been faced with another problem, called the unification of Togoland. AsI have already stated, "Togoland" was the name given by the Germans, and theterritory has no national historical background. The national character of theseareas had to be created by modern circumstances in a continent where the tribehas been the unit for a very long time, and in the modern age it is emerging intonational territorial groups. In the Gold Coast itself, there have been territorialchanges, and Lagos is now part of Nigeria, but we have to take the situation as itis today. Therefore any feeling that any delegation may have that we arepreventing the unity of a people is, in our submission, erroneous.

To hold back a territory under British administration from independence in orderto wait for the time when the people under French administration had arrived atthe same position would be to penalise these people who are today not only ready- I believe all peoples are ready - for independence, but who also have theopportunity of asserting their independence.

The second point I want to make in this connection is that it is a mistake to lookupon this situation as though it were the integration of Togoland in anotherterritory. The real problem here is that the independence of the Togoland people,who number in this territory 430,000 persons and occupy an area of 13,000 squaremiles - which is land-locked, without any exit to the sea - and whose economicfuture is bound up with the Gold Coast, is a practical impossibility. Therefore inthis solution which is now proposed we are in substance dealing with theindependence of the Togo people, and it is up to us to show these people a greatfuture...

Therefore, in recommending to the General Assembly the acceptance of this

report, I want to say once again that it gives my delegation extreme happiness tofeel that a new member State of the United Nations will soon join us and ... thatan imperial country has shown the height of its greatness by the magnanimity ofabandonment of empire. The strongest is he that will abandon force and believe inco-operation.

WEST IRIAN

[The political status of the territory of West New Guinea (West Irian) was underdispute between the Governments of Indonesia and the Netherlands for severalyears. Because of disagreement during the negotiations for the independence ofIndonesia, the Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty of 1949, by which theNetherlands granted independence to Indonesia, had provided that the status quoshould be maintained in the territory and that the question of its political statusshould be determined within a year through negotiations between the twocountries. But the negotiations broke down and the Netherlands amended itsconstitution in 1952, making the territory a part of the Kingdom of theNetherlands.

At the request of Indonesia, the matter was discussed by the General Assembly in1954, and at several subsequent annual sessions. Indonesia claimed that WestIrian belonged to Indonesia and that reunification was essential for peace in theregion. The Netherlands argued that West New Guinea was a non-self-governingterritory entitled to self-determination under the United Nations Charter.

On August 15, 1962 the two Governments reached an agreement on plans forsettling the political future of the territory, and the agreement was endorsed bythe General Assembly on September 21, 1962.]

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly,November 29, 195434

[India fully supported Indonesia in its dispute with the Netherlands overWest New Guinea (West Irian).

On November 30, 1954, India, together with seven other countries, submitted adraft resolution (A/C.1/L.110) to express the hope that Indonesia and theNetherlands would pursue their endeavours to find a solution to this dispute inconformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The resolution wasnot adopted, as the vote fell short of the required two-thirds majority.]

(Summary)

Mr. MENON (India) said that the issue before the Committee was not a boundarydispute, nor was it a question of rival claims to a territory existing in a political orhistorical vacuum, but simply a continuation of the question of the Indonesianpeople’s right to national independence. Although to mention it might seem an

34 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Ninth Session, First Committee, pages 438-40

incursion into history, the fact was that the Indonesian people had been inconflict with its rulers, the matter had been referred to the United Nations, and asettlement had been reached. The present problem was in reality the last chapterof a story of negotiations in regard to which the United Nations had aresponsibility, and it must fulfil that responsibility in regard to the last chaptertoo. The Indonesian Government, instead of taking the law into its own hands,had approached the United Nations as a loyal member State; and it would bemore appropriate to express appreciation of that action than to seek to deny thatthe Assembly was competent to deal with the matter. it was only fair to say thatthe Netherlands, while making reservations concerning the competence of theAssembly, had not refused to take part in the discussion.

Thus both parties had in some degree recognised that the United Nationspossessed authority and that the dispute, while not justiciable, was open tonegotiation. Admittedly, that did not necessarily mean that the Netherlandsagreed to negotiate as proposed in the Indonesian draft resolution, but at least nohostilities had been opened nor aggression launched; the context was one inwhich the United Nations could contribute to a peaceful settlement.

IN SUBSTANCE, THE PROBLEM HAD ARISEN out of a series of unilateralactions by the Netherlands. First of all, an agreement between the two parties hadnot been put into effect, and the Netherlands position appeared to be that it hadexpired. Secondly, arguing that West Irian was part of the Netherlands, theNetherlands Government had performed the unilateral act of altering itsconstitution to make room for a territory which had not previously been referredto in the constitution.

The Netherlands representative had referred to facts which he regarded asprecedents. He had maintained that his country’s jurisdiction over West Irian wassimilar to that of the United Kingdom, or of India - which at the time had beenunder British control - over Pakistan or Burma. But in fact, Burma, India andPakistan had all been part of the British dependency of India. In 1935, the BritishParliament, the sovereign constitutional authority, had created the State of Burma;and in 1947, by the passage of the Indian Independence Act, it had made Pakistana separate State. Could the Netherlands representative mention any comparablelegal act by which West Irian has been separated from the former NetherlandsEast Indies? The situation was rather that the constitution of West Irian as aseparate territory forming part of the Netherlands was an act ultra vires, violationof the existing agreements.

The supporters of the Netherlands delegation had in some instances shown lessmoderation than the Netherlands itself. The Committee had been asked to look atthe geographical, ethnological, historical and linguistic arguments. None of thosefactors determined nationality, but, since they had been mentioned, it could bepointed out that Bernard H.M. Vlekke, in his Nasantara; a history of the East

Indian Archipelago,35 said that the Netherlands East Indies extended from thewestern point of Sumatra to the Netherlands-Australian boundary in New Guinea.Thus, before the Round Table Conference agreements, there had been only onesovereignty - that of the Queen of the Netherlands - and no political unit called"West Irian"; whereas since the conclusion of those agreements there had beentwo sovereignties, that of the Netherlands, and that of Indonesia, comprising thewhole of what had formerly been the Netherlands East Indies.

A country need not have historical, geographical or ethnic ties with all itsconstituent parts in order to be a State. Thus, if the British Government had notseparated Aden from India in 1935, and placed it under the administration of theColonial Office, the sovereignty over Aden, which constitutionally had been partof the Bombay residency, would have passed to India, despite the heterogeneity ofthe ethnic, linguistic and geographical factors. Similarly, in the case of Indonesia,the sovereignty of the Queen of the Netherlands over an entire territory 3,000miles in extent had been transferred, and a reservation had been made only withregard to the administration of West Irian. In effect, a distinction had been madebetween a State and its government; the State had been transferred, but an elementof administration, in other words, a form of possession, had remained, withoutconferring legal authority over the territory.

The Netherlands representative had contended that the word "complete," in article1 of the Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty, referred to the word "sovereignty"and not to the word "Indonesia." That was true, but the question was the meaningof "sovereignty." It must mean sovereignty not over part but over the whole ofIndonesia.

It had been contended that the General Assembly was not competent to interprettreaties or to act as a judicial body. That was equally true, but the provisions ofthe Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty were merely part of the evidence in apolitical dispute.

Setting aside the question of sovereignty, it was admitted in article 2 of theCharter of Transfer that West Irian was the subject of a dispute - a disputerecorded in a treaty for which the United Nations was responsible. The UnitedNations was therefore bound to use the methods of conciliation and to induce theparties to negotiate. Thus, from that point of view, both the parties, as loyalmembers of the United Nations, had agreed - at least by implication - that theUnited Nations should examine the question. Consequently, negotiations wouldnot be followed by conflict.

In common with Australia which, it was to be hoped, would reconsider itsarguments, approach and outlook as a whole, India was especially concerned thatexternal complications should not arise in that part of the world just when onewar against a colonial Power had come to an end. That was another reason why

35 Harvard University Press, 1943.

the pacific intervention of the United Nations was desirable. Furthermore, article2(f) of the Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty bound the parties to resolve theirdifferences by peaceful means. It was true that a one-year time-limit had beenfixed, but that had merely been the expression of a hope; negotiations would haveto continue until the whole question of the transfer of sovereignty was settled.Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the United Nations had had a specialinterest in that international treaty from the outset, and was therefore bound tocongratulate Indonesia on having chosen the method of pacific settlement.

With regard to article 2 of the Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty, the onlyquestion reserved had been that of the political status of New Guinea. Ifsovereignty had been of paramount importance, that Charter would surely havespecified that the transfer of sovereignty applied only to the other territories.Furthermore, under article 1, paragraph 2, of the Charter of Transfer, Indonesiahad accepted that sovereignty on the basis of the provisions of its constitution, inwhich there was no reference to the fact that West Irian was to be outside thesovereignty of Indonesia. The legal evidence, in short, gave no support to the ideathat the transfer of sovereignty, the completion of which had been promised,would entail any reservation with regard to West Irian.

In other words, the Netherlands, when its sovereignty over Indonesia had come toan end, had not partitioned Indonesia, as India had been partitioned; therefore theabsorption of West Irian into the Kingdom of the Netherlands was ultra vires inrespect of the Round Table Conference agreements, and thereforeunconstitutional. Thus the only legal feature of that action was its purelyadministrative aspect, just as the British Crown retained government andadministrative authority in Tanganyika without exercising sovereignty there.

Geographical, historical, ethnic and linguistic arguments had also been advancedto prove that the people of Sumatra, for example, were remote from the people ofWest Irian. But everything was relative; it could scarcely be maintained that theNetherlands was geographically nearer to West Irian than Indonesia was.

Reference had been made to the sultanate in an endeavour to show that West Irianhad no historical connection with Indonesia. It could also have been recalled thatWest Irian had been settled by people from Southern India, and that between thethirteenth and sixteenth centuries it had formed part of the Empire of the Indies.The salient fact, however, was that, until 1940, or thereabouts, West Irian had noteven constituted a separate residency, but had formed two districts of theresidency of the Moluccas; in other words, it had been a subdivision of a Statewhich was now part of Indonesia.

Ethnological arguments were probably somewhat pointless, and might wellembarrass some of the oldest nations, which would find it hard to base theirnationality on ethnic ties. But West Irian and Indonesia had much more incommon than had been admitted in the Committee. Moreover, the fact that certain

peoples in the interior of a State were less advanced than others did not mean thatthey should remain isolated from the rest of the community.

LASTLY, LEAVING ASIDE THE LINGUISTIC PROBLEM, some delegationshad found it necessary to advance a strategic and political argument. It wasdoubtless customary to regard certain parts of Asia as indispensable to thecommunications of empires or the protection of trade routes. But strategicconsiderations were no more valid as a bar to the completion of Indonesianindependence than as a reason for holding territories like Suez. Moreover, it was avery poor argument to say that if certain territories were held by Indonesia, a loyalmember of the United Nations, to which it had submitted the present question,that would constitute a political or strategic danger to another country. Mr. Menonwould not probe that argument any further, in view of his delegation’s very closerelations with the two or three delegations which had advanced it.

The doctrine that imperial strategy was more important than the welfare of apopulation was untenable. The Netherlands, of course, had economic interestswhich it would be reasonable to protect by a negotiated agreement. That,however, was a matter for arrangement between the Indonesian and Netherlandspeoples. The United Kingdom and India had already benefited economically bythe change in their political relationship; that would be the experience of anyEuropean empire which took note of the signs of the times and made way for afraternal association. That was the process which had been set in motion inIndonesia, to the greater benefit of the peoples concerned.

The Australian representative had claimed that under another authority theinhabitants of West Irian would lose all hope of becoming civilised. But no oneshould forget the aboriginal population of Australia, which had shrunk from300,000 or 400,000 to 50,000 or the bloody conquest of the Banda Islands, whichrevealed an aspect of Netherlands colonial history that belonged to the past.

In the final analysis, the Netherlands position was based exclusively on colonialconquest, which had followed upon the arrival of the merchants. Fortunately, newlegal concepts had reduced the dispute over colonialism from one of physicalviolence to one of argument, in which each should be allowed to have his say infull knowledge of the facts.

The Australian representative had said that the people had continued to prosperunder Netherlands rule. It was true that European pioneers, administrators,missionaries and statesmen had suffered and struggled in Indonesia, as in theother colonies of Asia and Africa, in the service of the indigenous populations.But that was only one side of the picture. The fact was that in Indonesia, whichbefore its independence had had no university, 88,230 primary schools, 3,235secondary schools and a total of 1,879,000 pupils, there were now sevenuniversities, 26,670 secondary schools and nearly 5 million pupils. It was only

when the people had the power that they progressed, and the example ofIndonesia did not substantiate the assertion that the completion of the transfer ofsovereignty initiated by the Charter of Transfer would spell a period of darknessfor West Irian.

The problem was one that could be solved only by negotiation and not bydomination; and the same was true of the aggregate economic interests of the twocountries. Netherlands investments in Indonesia itself were considerable, and itwas naturally in the interests of the Dutch that the Indonesians should turn to themfor equipment and technical assistance under friendly conditions. The UnitedNations, which had a special responsibility in the matter, ought to bring about astate of fraternity in place of conflict. The independence of Indonesia had notcome as a voluntary move; it had come under the pressure of a nationalmovement, and after wiser counsels had prevailed. No one could desire theconflict to be reopened when so little remained to be done to complete the victoryof freedom.

Arguments had been advanced concerning Australian security, or that othersecurity to which the Philippine representative had referred, as well as theargument that the Indonesian Government would be less friendly towards thepeople of West Irian and less capable of looking after them. But such argumentsshould be set aside and attention given only to the agreements, to what wasmorally correct, to national freedom, and to the aspirations and the future of thepeoples themselves.

FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE ASIANAND NON-ASIAN PEOPLES of that part of the world, it was to be regretted thatAustralia had not been able to follow the policy that had led it to bring theIndonesian question before the Security Council. The future of that part of theworld lay in collaboration and in mutual understanding, and not in the fact thatcertain territories were occupied by European races for the purpose of establishingempires, exploding bombs, or halting some real or imaginary aggression. In thepresent case, given goodwill and the moral support of the General Assembly, thetwo parties should be able to get together and establish some relationship on anew basis.

It had been argued, on behalf of the Netherlands, that whatever agreement therehad been with the Republic of the United States of Indonesia had been cancelledby the changes in the constitution of Indonesia. But the new republic had inheritedthe rights and obligations of the old. In the same way, the Republic of India,another succession State, could not repudiate the obligations previouslyundertaken by the British Government. The treaty had been concluded withIndonesia; the expression "United States of Indonesia" had been merely the nameof one of the parties, whose character could change by constitutional processeswithout altering the situation.

The Indian delegation had no doubt said things which would not meet with theNetherlands delegation’s agreement, but it appealed to the Netherlands delegationto acknowledge that the curtain had been drawn on a great part of history. QueenWilhelmina herself had remarked that her people had to look to the future in adifferent set of circumstances...

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, February 27, 195736

[On December 19, 1955, the General Assembly adopted resolution 915 (X),expressing hopes for the success of the negotiations envisaged in a joint statementissued by Indonesia and the Netherlands a few days earlier. But the negotiationsfailed to result in an agreement.

The matter was again brought to the General Assembly. India, together with 12other countries, submitted a draft resolution (A/C.1/L.173) to ask the President ofthe Assembly to appoint a good offices commission to assist in negotiationsbetween the two Governments in order that a just and peaceful solution might beachieved. The draft was not adopted, as it failed to obtain the required two-thirdsmajority.]

(Summary)

Mr. MENON (India) felt that the issue of competence (of the General Assembly)persisted only in the minds of those mostly concerned about what they called thesecurity of their country rather than that of Indonesia or of West Irian. Thethirteen-Power draft resolution was in line with the consistent attempts, during thediscussion of the matter in the General Assembly, to find a conciliatory andharmonious solution in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Manyreferences had been made to the legal status of the Charter of the Transfer ofSovereignty, but in the view of the Indian Government, Indonesia was a sovereignnational republic by virtue of the fact that, with the assistance of the UnitedNations, it had established itself as an independent country. As the representativeof Ecuador had put it, the people of Indonesia had exercised their right to self-determination as a whole, as a unity, and not island by island.

It had been claimed that the Charter of the Transfer of Sovereignty had beenabrogated, but, if so, that could be true only of article 2 of that document. Article1 was the most important part and provided that complete sovereignty overIndonesia was unconditionally and irrevocably transferred to Indonesia. At that

36 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Twelth Session, First Committee, pages 311-12

time the Netherlands Constitution had referred only to Indonesia and had made nomention of West Irian, either as a residency or as a colony. The former colony ofthe Netherlands East Indies had been one territorial whole with its ownpersonality and unity. It was thus fallacious to argue that there was a territorialdispute. West Irian was part of Indonesia. It happened to be in the illegalpossession of the Netherlands, and the problem was by peaceful means to end thatillegality, which had been accentuated by the Act of the Netherlands Parliamentof September 11, 1956.

Dealing with article 2 of the Charter of the Transfer of Sovereignty, he failed tosee how the lapse of a year could automatically confer a right upon theNetherlands Government to absorb West Irian. Article 2 said only that the mattermust be settled by negotiation within a year and that the status quo of theResidency of New Guinea would meanwhile be maintained. But a residency waspart of a province of the Netherlands East Indies, which had become Indonesia. Ifthe status quo was to be maintained, any charge of annexation could consequentlybe made, if at all, against the Netherlands Government, which had severed WestIrian from Indonesia in 1956.

Regardless of the status of the Charter of the Transfer of Sovereignty, article 1thereof had become permanent by performance, because the Kingdom of theNetherlands had unconditionally and irrevocably transferred complete sovereigntyover Indonesia. Unless it could be established that West Irian, like Surinam, forexample, had been a separate entity - and every available constitutional documentindicated the reverse to be true - the action taken by the Netherlands Governmentin 1956 was an act of annexation, and argument about reference to a juridicalauthority was beside the point. To question the legality of the origins of nationswas scarcely profitable, for no revolution was legal until after it was successful.Citing the examples of the United States, Ireland and Canada, the independence ofeach of which could be questioned on the basis of arguments derived from strictlaw, he declared that the question of deciding the sovereignty of countries longafter they had been established by their own proclamation, by their own will anddetermination, did not arise. Moreover, in the case of Indonesia, the UnitedNations had been in existence and, with the assistance of countries such asAustralia, what might have been a bloody revolution had become more or less apeaceful settlement. Now the last portion of that settlement remained.

The representative of Australia had expressed concern over the fate of thePapuans. In that connection, Mr. Menon observed that it was better for colonialempires, for new countries and for old, not to go too far back into history. All, nodoubt, had a savage past originally. However, to argue that handing over thePapuans to the Indonesians would be a crime against humanity was as fallaciousas to argue that a nation must be an ethnic whole. Few members of theOrganisation would be nations if they had to fulfil that requirement. If thePapuans were restored to their original homeland, namely what was nowIndonesia, they would join a family or peoples which were ethnically different,

spoke different languages, had different religions and inhabited several thousandislands.

Indonesia, instead of taking the law into its own hands, relied on the good will ofthe nations of the world and sought only that representatives of member States, tobe appointed by the President of the General Assembly, should try to find someway of resolving the question. The Assembly could not turn a deaf ear to appealsmade by those who had rightful claims and who were entitled to consideration byreason of the fact that they did not press those claims by force, as they would beentitled to do under the ordinary law of nations as practised throughout history...

He regretted having to refer to arguments advanced by the representative ofAustralia, a country with which India had very close relations. Thatrepresentative’s argument that Australia had a cardinal interest in the future of thewhole of the area of New Guinea was imperialistic; it meant that, becauseAustralia had half of that territory as a colony, it did not want the other half topass out of European control. Mr. Menon was prepared to admit that New Guineawas strategically important to Australia, but it was equally so to Indonesia. IfAustralia was afraid of countries in the vicinity of that territory, Indonesia alsohad reason, for its own security, to think in the same way. If countries were to betreated as key areas in the defence of another country, he wondered what wouldbecome of their liberties.

As for the Australian representative’s reference to self-determination and to thepraise given to that principle by the representative of Indonesia, he pointed outthat the Indonesian people had not only spoken about the matter, but by theirendeavours had asserted the principle of self-determination. Freedom had notbeen handed over to the Indonesian people without any effort on their part. Thepeople of West Irian could not be referred to as cattle to be handed over to theirown people, for it was impossible to hand over the people of a country to thesame country. Such arguments were based on the fallacy that there had been aplace called West Irian isolated from Indonesia. That had not been so in Dutchtimes. No interests legitimate to Australia that were separate from the interests ofthe United Nations could be recognised by the General Assembly. The Australianargument regarding the unity of the Papuan people must be examined to seewhether it did not arise from the fact that the rest of New Guinea was anAustralian colony and that, therefore, the whole conception was something ratherdifferent from Papuan irredentism...

THE ONLY CASE THAT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED was that the rights ofthe Netherlands in West Irian were solely those of conquest, which were nolonger recognised as equitable and legal. If the problem to be settled under theCharter of Transfer had been that of sovereignty over West Irian, he asked whythat document had not stated that the question of that sovereignty would bedecided later. In fact, the text had provided that it was the problem of the

residency that would be settled later.

The draft resolution (A/C.1/L.173) did not ask for any legal decision or for theAssembly to come to any conclusion. It simply asked that the Assembly intervenebetween two member States and that the President of the Assembly appoint agood offices commission to assist the negotiations between them. Thenegotiations obviously would concern restoration to Indonesia of what rightfullybelonged to it.

There had never been any suggestion by the Netherlands that the question wasone of defence. If the Australian argument in that respect were to be accepted, notonly would the Indonesian claim to West Irian not be respected, but even theconcession expressed by the Netherlands Government that the people of that areawere to be self-governing at some time could not be implemented. If West Irianwere to become an independent country, he wondered what would become of thequestions of security, of Papuan unity and the other arguments put forward by theAustralian representative. His Government requested the total dismissal of theconcept of territories as imperial outposts of other people and was more and moreinclined to accept the position, which had been taken in regard to other questions,that all the peoples of a country were entitled to their nationality and territorialintegrity. He hoped that the draft resolution would be given the support of theCommittee.

Speech in the First Committee of the General Assembly, November 26, 195737

[The matter was again discussed at the General Assembly in November 1957.India, together with Indonesia and 17 other countries, submitted a draftresolution (A/C.1/L.193) to invite both parties to pursue their attempts to find asolution of the dispute in conformity with the principles of the United NationsCharter. The draft was not adopted as it failed to obtain the required two-thirdsmajority of votes.]

The Assembly has been debating the question of West Irian for the last three yearsand now it appears on our agenda for the fourth time. As the representative of theNetherlands pointed out, nearly 200 speakers have taken part in those debates andthe legal issues, the issues relating to the Charter of the Transfer of Sovereignty,all these matters have been discussed threadbare.

So far as we are concerned, we regard this problem as merely the completion ofthe independence of Indonesia. Indonesia was a colonial territory, formerly calledthe Dutch East Indies; and by the efforts of the Indonesian people, assisted of


course by the circumstances that arose during the war which caused a relaxationof the hold of imperial Powers on their Eastern territories, the political power ofIndonesia was established. And Indonesia did not establish its political power andthe right to be independent in regard to 2,999 islands or 3,001 islands; it was forthe whole of the territory over which the Netherlands had had hegemony...

It is quite understandable that in the United Nations, and particularly among thecountries of Latin America, any argument to which the word "self-determination"can be tagged always arouses a favourable response. It almost looks as thoughone’s left pocket will have self-determination in a different way from the rightpocket. There cannot be self-determination in regard to a territory that is alreadysovereign. If that were so, many countries - and I shall not mention them - aroundthis table would suffer disintegration today; that is to say, if we are to takesovereign powers and say that the peoples must have self-determination, the unityof those territories may well be decided by some local squabble, by somemomentary issue, by the desires of some political adventurers, or a neighbouringcountry, or anything of that kind. Therefore, the issue of self-determination assuch does not enter into this matter. The Indonesians did not win theirindependence by cries of self-determination but on the basis of their right as anation to be free; and they established it to a very considerable extent - althoughAustralia and other countries came in and on their initiative the Security Councilintervened to give final shape to it - by dint of their own efforts.

If it were unfortunately true that Indonesia was still the Dutch East Indies, acolonial territory, then they would be entitled today to demand sovereignty overthe whole territory. In our submission, the sovereignty of a country is notjusticiable...

The representative of Brazil referred to the material submitted, very accuratelyand well planned - as is customary with the Dutch - to the Committee onInformation from Non-Self Governing Territories. If this information is valid inregard to, shall we say, one year, it must be regarded as equally valid for theprevious year... On August 24, 1948, before Indonesia became free, the DutchGovernment submitted information and that information is factual; it does notcontain any political argument and it is simply in regard to what Indonesia is. Itsays in the report submitted to the United Nations.

"The Netherlands Indies (Indonesia) consists of a series of island groups inthe region of the equator, extending from the mainland of Asia toAustralia. The principal groups are the Greater Sunda Islands (Java,Madura, Sumatra, Borneo and Celebes, with their adjoining smallerislands), the lesser Sunda Islands (Bali, Lombok, Sumbawa, Flores,Timor... and New Guinea west of 141 degrees E. longitude."

This longitude of 141 degrees E. includes West Irian; it is on the other side ofWest Irian. So there was no separate West Irian territory. West Irian was a

residency, it was not even a province of the Dutch East Indies. So whether thischarter is valid today or not is immaterial - the struggle for independence of theIndonesian people was for their homeland, which is described here by the thenrulers, at a time when this struggle was not anticipated...

It is quite true that the majority of the countries of Southeast Asia, andparticularly those which have had their problems brought before the UnitedNations in the years of nascent idealism, often enter into the exploratorydiscussions, often accept methods whereby the completion of that process can bepeacefully accomplished. And that is where this Charter comes in. Article 2 ofthis Charter makes no reference to sovereignty; it simply talks about the politicalstatus of New Guinea, as it was then called - now West New Guinea or WestIrian. Article 2 is bounded by article 1 which says:

"The Kingdom of the Netherlands unconditionally and irrevocablytransfers complete sovereignty over Indonesia" - why did they not sayover Indonesia subject to article 2 - "to the Republic of the United Statesof Indonesia..."

It will be recognised that the United States of Indonesia at that time had not in itspolitical arrangements completed the unification of its various parts, which is allpart of history, but that Government in its wisdom - and I repeat, in its wisdom -though rather belated and under the pressure of liberal opinion in the Netherlandsitself, transferred to the United States of Indonesia "unconditionally andirrevocably" complete sovereignty over Indonesia. There is no difficulty aboutunderstanding the words "unconditionally and irrevocably transfers completesovereignty." No; the difficulty is over "Indonesia." Now the Dutch themselvesexplained what Indonesia was. Therefore, in our opinion, what is before us todayis not all these problems but how in terms of a peaceful approach we may proceedto resolve the situation, and that is the only purpose of the resolution that is beforethe Assembly.

I note that Indonesia sponsored this draft resolution and... it does show a greatdeal of generosity and a spirit of conciliation, because it says that, despite theirunquestioned sovereignty over these areas, please come and negotiate - negotiate,probably, with regard to the political status, with regard to time, with regard tojoint arrangements, with regard, probably, to getting the Dutch to invest theirconsiderable surplus money in the country and so, therefore, to their mutualadvantage. All those things can be negotiated. What does the draft resolution say?

"Realising that a peaceful solution of this problem should be obtainedwithout further delay...

"Invites both parties to pursue their endeavours to find a solution inconformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter."

Looking over Mr. Schurmann’s statement on behalf of the Netherlands, the firstpoint he makes, and quite rightly, is that the Kingdom of the Netherlands hasobligations under the Charter which must be performed. We may differ as to whatthe contents of those obligations are but we all agree that all of us haveobligations under the Charter, and since this resolution says "Invites both parties...to find a solution... in conformity with the principles of the United NationsCharter," the argument about what they are can come as the negotiations progress.They cannot be pleaded as a bar to negotiations.

During these three years, different positions have been taken. The Indonesians, ifmy memory serves me right, took up a position on the basis of the round tableconference and the Charter and so on in the beginning, and they stated it. All thatwas required was that it should be known that their best endeavours had failed andit asked the General Assembly to call on the Netherlands to complete the contract.

The position of the Netherlands, subject to correction, and as far as can be judgedfrom the documents and the law in this case, is that the sovereignty over WestIrian was in dispute or that the transference of sovereignty and all that goes with itwas in dispute. The Indonesians had never said, to the best of my recollection,either in Indonesia, or here, or anywhere else, that sovereignty was in dispute. Butthe position taken up by the Netherlands today is that they will not negotiatebecause the Charter is abrogated, it is their sovereign territory, you are asking usto negotiate about the sovereign territory of the Netherlands, which is not theposition because it was transferred as part of the executed contract. Therefore, Isubmit that if the Assembly would be good enough to address itself to the limitedtask before it, it does not call upon particularly some of the Latin American Statesto pronounce themselves on these questions at the present time, but asks theparties to negotiate.

We ourselves would not dare to tell the Indonesians, publicly at any rate, tonegotiate unless they had taken the initiative. I say, therefore, that Indonesia’ssponsoring of the resolution is an indication of generosity which often ismisplaced in public discussion. Very often it has been our experience that anywillingness to explore a tentative proposition is pinned upon you as a commitmentafterwards and the basic fundamentals are forgotten. But here, Indonesia iswilling to negotiate, wants to negotiate, and, what is more, negotiate inconformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter. Well, how can thatproposition be objected to? It can only be objected to if the NetherlandsGovernment now goes back on the facts of the case, namely, the establishment ofIndonesian independence which is the same as the establishment of Americanindependence by the revolt of the thirteen colonies against the Britain of that day,unless they go back against those facts, or unless they go back against what wasintended and what is shown in article I which is part of the executed contract, thatis, the transfer of sovereignty, and article 2 only deals with the political question -"the question of the political status of New Guinea be determined throughnegotiations" and so forth. And that is what is suggested, not necessarily in terms

of the article but in terms of the resolution. And since it is bounded by theprinciples of the United Nations Charter, I submit that everyone can feel reassuredthat such obstacles as there may be are further away and there need be noopposition...


[In October 1961, the Netherlands Government announced that it was preparedto terminate its sovereignty over the territory as soon as the population’s right toself-determination was properly safeguarded. The Netherlands was prepared toagree that its powers should, to the extent necessary, be exercised by aninternational authority under the United Nations which could prepare the peoplefor early self-determination.

Indonesia, while reiterating that West Irian was Indonesian territory, indicatedthat if the Netherlands was prepared to relinquish its sovereignty over theterritory, an agreement could be reached that would not prejudice the rights andclaims of either side.

India, along with eight other countries, moved a draft resolution (A/L.367) tourge the Governments of Indonesia and the Netherlands to engage in furthernegotiations under the aegis of the President of the General Assembly, with aview to finding a solution in conformity with the principles of the United NationsCharter. Neither this draft, nor an alternative draft by 13 countries, obtained therequired two-thirds majority of votes, and the Assembly adopted no resolution.]

...West Irian is a subject on which this Assembly has a great deal of information,because year after year we have discussed it in great detail in the First Committee.I hope I will not be misunderstood when I say that the draft resolution [A/L.354]submitted by the Netherlands - while we cannot accept it and the Indonesianshave not accepted it, since it goes contrary to much of history - does, at any rate,represent a change. It means its commitment to unwind its empire. Of course Ido not suppose this applies to its Caribbean empire - but it will unwind its empire.But, having said that, I am informed that in the last speech made on this subjectby the representative of the Netherlands, he made it very clear that nothing wasgoing to happen for a year. And so - while I have no desire to discuss the meritsof it, the draft resolution we have submitted [A/L.367] is of another character; itasks for this matter to be the subject of direct negotiation. It suggests that, inview of the history of this matter and the desire that must prevail in this Assembly

38 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixteenth session, Plenary Meetings, pages715-18

among all concerned that, as far as possible - if it is at all possible - the changesmust be peaceful; that further attempts should be made for bilateral negotiations,bilateral discussions, between the two main parties concerned.

It may well be asked, what is our position with regard to the question? I would,therefore, without entering into the merits of it and without asking the Assemblyto commit itself, try to place our reasons before the Assembly...

West Irian, so far as the Government of India is concerned, is an integral part ofIndonesia. But, in all these matters, when great changes are taking place, webelieve there is room for discussion and understanding. So, as the Netherlandshas decided, according to its draft resolution [A/L/354], to withdraw from WestIrian, then the question of to whom the territory should go should be a matter fordiscussion and common agreement. I should also like to say that we cannot agreeto what has been set out in the Netherlands draft resolution, namely, that theUnited Nations should appoint a commission for Netherlands New Guinea,because this means that the question of sovereignty - at worst, or at best - is indispute. This particular paragraph prejudges that question. We are quite preparedto leave this in abeyance and to allow Indonesia and the Netherlands to meet,under the aegis of the President of the Assembly, in order to find a way wherebythis "unwinding" process can take place.

We should like to express our appreciation of the fact that the NetherlandsGovernment has offered to spend a considerable amount on the economicdevelopment of this territory. But no amount of economic aid can ever be asubstitute for the freedom of people. It may be argued that the West Irianese areentitled to self-determination; if that it so, the Assembly would have to decidethat, and whatever emerges in regard to the question of sovereignty, under thePresident’s guidance, would be of some value of the Assembly. But if theposition is that every country has to come here and submit itself to that doctrine ofself-determination, then I think every village, every state and every municipalitywould have to become independent territory.

The position of the Government of India is that West Irian is a colonial territory,having been administered by the Netherlands, and whose sovereignty has beentransferred under the terms of the Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty. But I donot want to argue the merits of this at the present time because our desire is not tocreate any difficulties in regard to this. We firmly believe that, having regard towhat has happened in the last five or six years, and the recognition, by largenumbers of Dutch people and of Indonesian people of their own interests, anotherperiod of direct negotiation, with such good offices as the President of theAssembly can exercise, would lead to our finding a solution, which in the pastwas not possible.

Now, some people may ask; is this not a process of evasion, are you not escapingsomething? Our answer to that would be: one year ago, two years ago, no one

would have thought that the imperial country of the Netherlands would come hereand say that it was prepared to withdraw from that territory. But at the presentmoment, for their going they prescribe something in regard to the future of thisTerritory. The answer of the Indonesians, as far as I understand it, is this: that theNetherlands has no right to give this territory away because it is not theirs giveaway.

Now, for the purpose of this particular session, we would submit that our draftresolution (A/L.367) might perhaps lead to a termination of the imperial rule ofthe Netherlands in West Irian, thus enabling the people of West Irian to be joinedwith those of Indonesia; in fact, West Irian is very much like Goa, except ofcourse that there are no Charters of Transfer of Sovereignty in connection withGoa...

The operative part of the Indian draft resolution reads:

"1. Urges the Governments of Indonesia and the Netherlands to engagethemselves in further negotiations under the aegis of the President of theGeneral Assembly with a view to finding a solution of this question inconformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter;

"2. Requests the President to facilitate bilateral negotiations envisaged inparagraph 1 above under his auspices;

3. Requests the Government of Indonesia and the Netherlands to co-operate..."

I submit that this is a draft resolution that seeks the way of peace rather than theway of conflict. Neither party stands to lose anything very much, because it wasnot the intention of the Netherlands Government to do anything for a yearanyway. It asked for a commission of inquiry to be set up by the United Nations,which would have begged the whole question of sovereignty, and I cannot see -except in the general purposes of the Charter - where the authority could bederived, because there is no trusteeship agreement in regard to it. And then again,today the administration is in the hands of one side, and any inquiry conductedthere would be conditioned by that situation.

For all those reasons, we have submitted in good faith this very simple draftresolution, which merely asks that the process of bilateral talking - which hasgone on for a long time - with the Presidents kind assistance, may lead to adifferent situation because we are not where we were two or three years ago.

The fact that the Netherlands Government accepted the resolution on theliquidation of colonialism and that public opinion in that country is willing to seethe termination of authority in that area, means that one of the main difficulties isremoved. Then, with regard to the other difficulty, which is that, Netherlands

public opinion may still have views as to who is sovereign and who is not, it issomething that, under the terms of the Linggadjati Agreement, and with thePresident’s assistance to these parties in understanding their respective positions,we may be able to find some solution...

Our country has always advocated, from this rostrum, that people who havedifferences face each other rather than run away from each other. We think it isbetter, in the present circumstances, not to introduce other elements, and that suchmediator influence, such restraining influence or conciliatory influence as may benecessary in the context of the argument could be supplied by the President of theGeneral Assembly...

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly,September 21, 196239

[On August 15, 1962, the Governments of Indonesia and the Netherlands reachedan agreement - with the assistance of a mediator (Ellsworth Bunker) appointedby the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant - on plans forsettling the political future of West Irian.

Under the Agreement, Netherlands would transfer the administration of theterritory to a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority, headed by anAdministrator appointed by the United Nations Secretary- General. TheAdministrator would have discretion to transfer the administration of all or partof the territory to Indonesia after May 1, 1963. The inhabitants were to exercisetheir right to self-determination before the end of 1969 and decide whether toremain with Indonesia or to sever their ties with it. A representative of the UnitedNations Secretary-General would advise, assist and participate in agreements forthe act of free choice.

The General Assembly discussed the matter on September 21, 1962 and adopted aresolution - 1752 (XVII) - co-sponsored by Indonesia and the Netherlands, to takenote of the Agreement and authorising the Secretary-General to carry out thetasks entrusted to him under the Agreement.

The following is a statement by Mr. Menon in explanation of vote on theresolution.]

From the procedural point of view, we are here at this moment to explain ourvote. I want to make it quite clear that, so far as we are concerned, it is not a vote

39 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventeenth Session, Plenary Meetings,pages 57-58

that we are explaining, because my Government does not consider that it is for usto decide whether this Agreement should have been signed or not signed. It is anAgreement reached between two sovereign countries, and we have no right ofinterference. We welcome it, and we welcome the Secretary-General’s role in it.It has been registered, no doubt, with the Untied Nations and therefore werecognise its presence. We also support paragraph 3 of the explanatorymemorandum, which authorises the Secretary-General to carry out the tasksentrusted to him, again by agreement between the parties.

I would like to say that we come here to express our good wishes to theIndonesian Government and people, as well as to the Netherlands Governmentand people, for the termination of a situation which has not been very happy foreither side. We hope that the Agreement now reached, although it does notcomplete the process by which the enforced isolation of part of Indonesia fromthe rest of the mother country will be ended, can see that this process issatisfactorily completed.

I have been asked by our immediate neighbours, Ceylon and Nepal, to speak ontheir behalf in offering these congratulations.

WHATEVER WE SAY ON THIS PLATFORM IS A MATTER OF PUBLICSIGNIFICANCE. We want to make our position very clear in regard to the statusof West Irian. The interest of my country and its participation in this matter goback to 1949, when the Government of India, with the co-operation of theGovernment of Australia, rallied the Governments of that part of the world inorder to focus public attention on the subject status of Indonesia and its attempt tofree itself from thraldom to the Netherlands Empire. Since then, our position hasbeen that Indonesia is one and sovereign, and we have repeated that year afteryear in this Assembly. That has no relation exclusively to either our geographicalcloseness or the personal relations that obtain between the Indonesian leaders andourselves, but rather to our approach to the whole problem of colonies...

We are familiar with this problem in which there is a bit of unfinished business -and you have to finish it, one way or another.

With regard to the text of this Agreement, it is as I said, an Agreement betweentwo Sovereign nations, and it is part of sovereignty to have the capacity to dealwith it one way or another.

However, I feel we should make certain observations on this matter. The UnitedNations has assumed for itself a role in this matter - very ably sponsored in thisinstance by the Acting Secretary General. We congratulate him on the success ofthis effort, in so far as we have an Agreement of this kind. But the role of theUnited Nations - and let there be no misunderstanding about it - is not theconversion of this area into a trust territory. While it is true that the Secretary-

General, as one of the principal organs of the United Nations and its spokesman,has successfully intervened here, that does not mean that the accountability to theAssembly, in regard to what happens during the period of its stewardship orwhatever status - this ad hoc position they have adopted, and the United Nationsassumes ad hoc roles in many different places, under the previous Secretary-General we used to have a very common feature, what was called the "presence"of the United Nations, not provided for in the Charter - but, whatever it may be, itdoes not make West Irian a trust territory.

There is no question therefore of creating independence in this area. Indonesia isone and independent. By the enforced separation of the part through the non-completion of the agreements reached in 1949 at The Hague, at the Round TableConference, this territory has remained under adverse possession and the rightfulowners - I will not say the rightful owners, but the rightful sovereign Power - forthe sake of peace and also in order that the culmination of this business may be ina peaceful way, have come to certain arrangements which suit them, and wecongratulate them in so far as, on the one hand, the conclusion of the objectivesof the Round Table Conference at The Hague is now in sight, and, secondly thatwhile a certain amount of waiting may take place, it will still take place under theauspices of the United Nations so far as the practical part of it is concerned.

We also want to say that this period of the presence of the United Nations is in nosense a period when its authority will be exercised as a kind of super-authority inthe place. The United Nations will have very limited functions. In our view, thisperiod should be as short as possible. The period of 1969 that is prescribed is amaximum, and there is no reason why it should remain a maximum. The role ofthe United Nations, consistent with the Charter, would be to harmonise thevarious interests as far as possible, without being a super-authority over thesovereign authority of Indonesia...

It is entirely up to the Indonesian Government to decide how this enforcedpartition and the historic conditions created thereby - all the trends of separatepersonality that have developed - can be overcome. It is much to the credit ofyourself, Mr. Secretary-General, and the others concerned, that an Agreement hasbeen brought about. Our own Government, in this matter, has always asked fordirect negotiations between the Indonesian Government and the NetherlandsGovernments.

LAST YEAR THERE CAME BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY three draftresolutions. As regards one of the resolutions, the Government of the Netherlands,I am happy to say, showed its wisdom in withdrawing it. That draft resolutionaimed at the creation of a United Nations commission and thereby an internationaltrusteeship over the sovereign territory of Indonesia. We would have resisted sucha proposal even if we were the only delegation which voted against it.

My delegation, along with a number of other governments, submitted a draftresolution at that time which obtained a majority but it did not obtain thenecessary two-thirds majority. The purpose of it was that the IndonesianGovernment and the Netherlands Government should directly negotiate, with thegood offices of the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Toour regret at that time, a large number of countries, forty of them, mainlybelonging to the Western group of countries, did not find it possible to support it.But soon after the conclusion of the Assembly session, the same kind ofarrangement was made of the two countries talking to each other, with your goodoffices, Mr. Secretary-General. So all’s well that ends well...

I share with the Indonesians and a host of our colleagues the hope that in spite ofthe difficulty that has prevailed in the past, the relations between the Dutch andIndonesians will now develop. It is our experience that once an empire removesitself, there are closer relations between peoples who were hitherto apart. Thereare more Englishmen in India today than when the British occupied the country.We are no longer afraid of them and they are no longer afraid of us.

Actually the Indonesians have had a long period of tutelage under the Dutch andtheir educational system and so on, and the impact of Roman-Dutch law - allkinds of things in that way. Since their independence they have come under theinfluence of other countries also. They are our close neighbours. We wish themwell, and we hope that the arguments and various theories which challengeIndonesia’s sovereignty will now disappear, that the unity of Indonesia and thetermination of colonialism in that part of the world will become fully acceptedand achieved. Furthermore, we must hope that there will be no attempt to reviveit in one way or another.

PART II

POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS

REPRESENTATION OF CHINA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

[India recognised the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic ofChina soon after its establishment in October 1949 and supported proposals inthe United Nations that its delegation should take the seat of China.

Until 1955, the question of representation of China was raised by the SovietUnion, as a point of order, at the beginning of each session of the GeneralAssembly, to seat the representatives of the People’s Republic of China.

From 1956 to 1959, India annually proposed inclusion in the agenda of theGeneral Assembly of an item, "representation of China in the UnitedNations." Each year, the United States was able to obtain approval of a draftresolution by the General Committee (the steering committee of the GeneralAssembly) recommending that the Assembly not include the item in itsagenda and not consider the matter during that session. These draftresolutions were then debated in plenary meetings of the General Assemblyand adopted by majority vote, though the votes in support of the Indianposition increased steadily.

India and Mr. Krishna Menon earned the hostility of the United Statesadministrations for persistent advocacy of the seating of the People’s Republic ofChina, but India remained consistent even when relations with China wereseverely strained in the late 1950s.

The People’s Republic of China was seated in 1971, several years after KrishnaMenon ceased to represent India at the United Nations.

The following are extracts from some of the speeches by Mr. Krishna Menon onthe substantive and procedural aspects of the matter.]


[India moved an amendment (A/L.211) to the draft resolution recommendedby the General Committee, to reject the recommendation of the GeneralCommittee and include the question of the representation of China in theagenda.]

...Before I go on to address myself to the amendments which stand in the name ofmy delegation (A/L.210), I should like to set out the reasons why we have


presented them. I have no desire to comment more than is necessary on the viewexpressed in the General Committee, and now just expressed by the President, inregard to these matters, because, whether a delegation agrees with the President ornot, we elected him President and, what is more, we elected him unanimously.My delegation and I have great personal respect for the President and for hisintegrity. But that does not preclude my saying that the view taken in regard tothe procedural position in the General Committee is one that does not accord withthe rules of procedure and the general procedures adopted in public debate. Thedelegation of India requested the General Committee, as it is entitled to do, toplace this item on the agenda. It is entirely up to the General Committee to decidenot to place that item on the agenda and to make a recommendation to that effect.

The explanation which the President, out of courtesy to the Assembly, has justmade - that the draft resolution falls within rules of procedure - is, in the view ofmy delegation, erroneous. We have a situation here in which the GeneralCommittee has usurped the functions of the General Assembly and of itsCommittees. The General Committee has no business to make anyrecommendations on the political substance of any issue. What the GeneralCommittee has done is to advise the Assembly as to what it should do in regard torepresentation, and it has thereby committed two errors. First, it has made apolitical recommendation which it is not its business to make. In our view, thePresident is in error in suggesting that those recommendations pertain toexclusion or inclusion. The governing words in rule 40 of the rules of procedureare the words "concerning its inclusion in the agenda" or " the rejection of therequest for inclusion." All that should come forward is whether we should acceptor reject. From that point of view, paragraph 1 of the United States draftresolution would be in order, though it would be rather unusual because it is notnecessary to have a resolution to say "no." That, however, is the pleasure of theUnited States delegation. If it wants to adopt a certain circuitous procedure, thenno one can stand in the way...

My delegation wants to put on record that it is regrettable that the rules ofprocedure should be stretched in such a way as to enable the General Committeeto usurp the functions of the Assembly and should be so interpreted as to forestalla discussion here. In connection with this draft resolution, the General Committeehas not only transgressed on the functions of the Assembly but it has also trans-gressed on the functions of the Credentials Committee.

The Credentials Committee, in regard to this question, is heavily weighted againstthe admission of the People’s Republic of China. Looking at its composition andlooking at the views held by its members, some of them expressed even at thismeeting and others which are well known, if it came to a question of voting, theCredentials Committee would certainly vote down any recommendation of thiskind. However, whether or not it would is beyond the point and is only apolitical inference which we way make from the available facts. But theAssembly has the duty, until the Credentials Committee makes its report, to

regard its opinions as sub judice and not subject to pronouncement beforehand...

I now address myself to the problem before us, namely the question of theinclusion of this item. I want to say, by way of a preliminary observation, thatthere is no question of the admission of China to the United Nations; China is afounding member of the United Nations and has a permanent seat on the SecurityCouncil. The question is whether China is represented.

Secondly, I shall enter the merits of this question only in so far as my Governmenthas come under criticism and also to the extent that arguments have been used topersuade the Assembly to vote against the admission of the item.

BEFORE DOING THAT, HOWEVER, I DESIRE TO DRAW THEATTENTION of the Assembly to, and to state in no uncertain terms views of mydelegation on a statement that was issued yesterday by a member of a delegationof a member State. My staff has brought to my attention the fact that a member ofthe United States delegation has issued a statement on this subject, with regard tothe greater part of which we have no quarrel, that is to say, although we do notagree with one word of it, we do not question the right to make it. What is more,we think that in a few years` time all those words will have to be reversed. That,however, is another matter. But no delegation has the right to question theintegrity of another. And he who says that the Government of India or thedelegation of India is here as the mouthpiece of anybody other than its ownGovernment or its own people, is guilty not only of a misstatement of fact but ofdoing a disservice to the cause of international friendship.

A member of the United Nations delegation stated, it was reported this morning:"I have been shocked that India and its delegation leader have apparently becomethe floor leader for the Soviet drive to bring Communist China to the UnitedNations." As for being shocked, that is a question of state of mind, and the thingto do is to go to a doctor or to a psychiatrist about it.

Knowing the leader of the United States delegation, knowing the good relationsthat have existed between the United States delegation and our delegation,knowing the number of times that we have been in agreement - against the SovietUnion and vice versa - and knowing the number of times that we have been indisagreement with other delegations on various questions, I, for my part, and I amsure my Government also, would decline to accept that the opinion is thestatement of the view of the United States Government. It is up to the UnitedStates delegation either to own or to disown that statement.

So far as we are concerned, I think it is a very inappropriate statement to comefrom a responsible member of delegation of a country in regard to another withwhich it is in diplomatic and friendly relations. In difficult circumstances - andhaving regard to the diverse views we hold arising from the diversity of our

historic circumstances, our political thinking and our geographical configuration -both have striven, through their ambassadors, their ministers and theirrepresentatives, to harmonise relations.

Our relations with the United States are friendly. Our economic, political, moraland cultural relations are of a character of mutual respect, I think it is a greatdisservice to the causes for which the United States stands that anybody should beled away into making a statement of this kind. My delegation has no quarrel witha United States Senator making whatever statement he wants to make, and wecould not restrain him. But when a member of a delegation makes such astatement, it is my bounden duty to my Government to make a public protestagainst it and to await the statement of the leader of the United States delegationeither here or to us at any time. I have no desire to embarrass my friend, Mr.Henry Cabot Lodge,41 by asking for categorical statements, but I hope that he willconvey to his Government the views I have expressed here.

I COME NOW TO THE QUESTION OF ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS ITEM.First, let me remind the Assembly that the present Government of China cameinto existence legally and theoretically on October 1, 1949. On November 18,1949, that Government applied for the acceptance of its credentials so as to takeits seat in the place that belonged to China. In 1950, my delegation submitted adraft resolution (A/1365) to the Assembly in this connection. Every year sinceand in every United Nations gathering, whether it be of the General Assembly orof Security Council when India was a member of it, or of the specialised agenciesor of any group of the United Nations, we have consistently and persistentlymaintained our attitude that the proper representation of China meantrepresentation by the real Government of China. Therefore, any suggestion thatwe have suddenly emerged, and that someone else’s mantle has fallen upon us, ispurely a subjective state of mind.

The most cogent argument against the inclusion of this item, through rather asurprising one, is the one which has come from the delegation of the UnitedKingdom and has been supported by a large number of other delegations: that itsconsideration is not timely. When has one heard of an imperial country everthinking that progress was timely? There is always the phrase "always too lateand too little," applied to those who are in the exercise of authority without theconsent of peoples. Therefore, the question of timeliness is one on which wemust agree to differ.

The representative of the United States told us that this problem would deeplydivide the General Assembly. I reiterate what I said in the General Committee:the General Assembly is deeply divided on this question. What in fact therepresentative of the United States means is that if this was considered, it wouldbe against his point of view, and therefore the division would acquire a different

41 United States Representative

colour. The Assembly is divided now because there are many of us who want thismatter considered; therefore it is not as through we are creating a division. Whyshould the division be looked at from the point of view of only one side? Thedivision is a fact that must be recognised. But why are we afraid of division? Thebest way to deal with division is to discuss it. We have to and we shall,democratically, constitutionally and in accordance with the Charter, accept loyallythe decision that is made, and therefore we do not see any reason why it shouldnot be argued.

But I would like, however, to refer to the more important fact about this questionof timeliness. The one grave concern that everybody in this room must have isthe general state of tension in the world, which can at any time erupt, in any partof the world, into war, and which would lead to world war. That does not requiremy reiteration. In fact, that has been the burden of the argument that China is inclose relations with the Soviet Union, a very mighty country, and is antagonisticto the other Power group, namely that of the United States.

This is all the more reason why then we have the powerful groups; and Chinaitself is a very powerful country with a considerable army and a considerableindustry and - whether you like it or not, you cannot wish these facts away - apeople, particularly in the present generation, who as we know from first-handknowledge are very devoted to the regime that now exists and to thereconstruction of their country, so that we should not avoid consideration of theissues involved.

It would be fallacious to regard these issues as untimely and not to bring theminto discussion. The situation in the Far East is such that it can erupt any day intoa condition which would be most catastrophic and regrettable. For the last twoyears my Government has used such diplomatic facilities as it has, such influenceas it has, not in order to bring about the victory of one point of view or another,but to say quite frankly that the solution of this matter depends upon the UnitedStates talking face to face with the Chinese Government, and vice versa.

Therefore, the very existence of these tensions, the very fact that there areconsiderable armies massed on the Straits of Formosa, the very fact that theChinese Government not only has political, but even moral and psychological,influence in the continent of Asia, is something of very great importance. If youhad been present at the Asian-African Conference at Bandung, you would havefelt this. There were twenty-nine countries represented there, of which I believeonly half at that time probably recognised the People’s Republic of China. Itwould be very wrong for me to mention names, but it was interesting to see theattitude of the other countries to the personnel, as well as to the attitude and thepresence, of the Chinese Government at that conference.

Whatever contradiction may come from one quarter or another, let it not beforgotten that this idea of the exclusion of the real Government of the Chinese

people is a slight upon the choice of Asia, since this Government holds theallegiance of 525 million people on that mainland, since it alone is entitled andcompetent to deliver the goods under the provisions of the Charter; and that is thevast bulk of Asian opinion, even that section of Asian opinion which isdeterminedly anticommunist, if you like, which is determinedly nationalist, if youlike, and which is conservative.

If we were to say that there are countries - I will not mention this continent or thatcontinent - which are present here, the forms of government of which areanathema to some of us and therefore we will not have them here, how wouldthose countries and those continents take that? It is our experience that even inone continent some countries may have one form of government of which othersdisapprove; but while they may disapprove of it among themselves, if anyoneform elsewhere were to come and say "Your continent has such and such a formof government," there would be a general revolt against such mention.

Therefore, this idea of the United Nations - largely by votes and influence andpressure that comes form one part of the world - excluding the Government of thelargest country in Asia, is I think, a crime against the Charter. There is generallya feeling here that this is just one-way traffic, that the proper representation ofChina is necessary only for China. With great respect to this Organisation, I saythat it is equally necessary and good for the United Nations.

The strength and the capacity of the United Nations to implement the purpose ofthe Charter depend upon the loyalty it can command of all the peoples of theworld. They depend upon its capacity to spread its influence to every region ofthe world. To place certain countries outside the confines of our discussion,outside the impact of ideas that might come from here, is not the way to try andbuild a society in terms of the Charter of the United Nations.

Therefore, instead of the consideration of this question being untimely, it is ourhumble view - irrespective of the situation that exists in the Middle East,irrespective of the tumultuous, catastrophic and regrettable situation that exists ina great part of Central Europe, particularly in Hungary, and irrespective of thecomplaints that exist in regard to them, and in fact on account of them - that this isthe time, and it is more timely than any other, to consider this questiondispassionately. Does anybody believe, when any serious issue with regard to theFar East is being discussed, that not even its most determined opponents are notfaced with the issue of discussing it with the Chinese Government directly orindirectly?

The representative of Colombia referred to the Conference in Geneva. Where didhe sit? Did he sit with the representative of the Formosan authorities or did hehave discussions with the representative of the Chinese Government? I ask theAssembly to recall resolution 705 (VII), adopted by it in the spring of 1953 inconnection with this. When you have to do business, you have to do it with the

people who can deliver the goods; and the other is just an illusion.

I think the other aspect of it is that China, this great country, which has animportant place in the United Nations and which is assigned a permanent seat inthe Security Council, finds its power and position being placed in the hands ofindividuals or groups that cannot speak in the name of China, whatever else theymay do...

I have no desire to go further into this matter, but I want to say, in all conscience,because we do not hear very much about it, that the situation in the Far East is ofa character which requires the presence of China and Japan among us. Withoutthem it would be impossible to create a situation of stability; and let us notoverlook the fact that, while there are rules and regulations about boycotts, andother things, these regulations are of a character which are more broken in theobservance than any other. I have been in China myself and it is surprising that,in spite of the total trade embargo, there are large quantities of European andAmerican goods, including vehicles, that one seems there. Therefore, obviously,the boycott is not working. We also know the concern of European countriesabout establishing trade relations with China.

We also have the fantastic situation where the armed forces of the true ChineseGovernment, as some people think, are gunning innocent shipping in the Straits ofFormosa, including British ships. We hear a great deal of the honour of the naviesof other countries and there are no protests. Various other things happen in thesame way.

I have no desire to stir up feelings, even if I could. But I want to tell theAssembly: "However you vote, please do not take to your heart the idea that thisis an untimely situation ." We are sitting on the top of a volcano in thinking thatwe can just wish things away. These are real facts of life and the GeneralAssembly has to recognise the facts of life.

REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BY VARIOUS DELEGATIONS - and I shallnot refer to names - to the quality of this Government and also to whether or notthe representatives who are here are the real representatives of the ChineseGovernment... I think the best authority on this point is the Government of theUnited States, and here is an extract from White Paper of the State Department in1949:

"The fact was that the decay which our observers had detected inChungking early in the war had fatally sapped the powers of resistance ofthe Kuomintang. Its leaders had proved incapable of meeting the crisisconfronting them, its troops had lost the will to fight, and its Governmenthad lost popular support."42

42 United States Relations with China, Department of State Publication 3573, Far Eastern Series

It goes on to say:

"A realistic appraisal of conditions in China, past and present, leads to theconclusion that the only alternative open to the United States was full-scale intervention in behalf of a Government which had lost theconfidence of its own troops and its own people."43

In the face of that statement, which was made as a serious communication by theState Department, I suppose, to the Executive Head of the Government at thetime, after serious inquiry, how can it be pretended that an émigré group cancommand the confidence of the Chinese people - a group with an army that wouldnot fight, that did not fight, but just ran away because there was no popularsupport? There is no one who would seriously contend that the vast masses of theChinese people are not loyal to their Government. What is required ininternational law is that the people who inhabit a territory owe habitual obedienceto their government and that the government is able to fulfil its internationalobligations. These are the conditions that enable a government to be called agovernment.

I do not plead for the recognition of China by any of the countries representedhere, or even by the United Nations. I only ask members to consider this. I askthem not to shut their eyes and adopt an ostrich attitude towards a problem that isreal. If we shut our eyes, the world does not become dark; facts do not go away...

Over and above that, there is all the development that has taken place in the lastsix or seven years. When the proposal to include this question in the agenda wasbrought before the General Assembly for the first time, it was defeated. So far asI can remember, at the 77th meeting of the General Committee, eleven votedagainst its consideration, and two voted for it. Two days ago, at the GeneralCommittee’s 108th meeting, five voted for consideration of the question, and onlyeight against, it, and there was one abstention. There are today 28 or 29 countrieswhich recognise the Government of China and a certain number of other countries- making the number larger - which are in the process of going on to recognitionthrough there trade and other relations. It would not be proper for me to go intothe question of who these latter are because that would be interference in delicatediplomatic negotiations. On the other hand, there are delegations and visitorsfrom all over the world, except one country, who are going into China to seethings for themselves, and their reports are available to everyone.

So far as the presence of China itself is concerned, I think that the best authorityon this matter is the present Secretary of State of the United States, whom we aresorry not to see among us and whose health, we hope, will soon be restored. Hesaid in 1950:

30, Washington, D.C., 1949, p. xiv43 Ibid., p. xv

"I have now come to believe that the United Nations will best serve thecause of peace if its Assembly is representative of what the world actuallyis, and not merely representative of the parts which we like."

This is the significant part:

"Therefore, we ought to be willing that all the nations should be memberswithout attempting to appraise closely those which are ‘good’ and thosewhich are ‘bad.’ Already that distinction is obliterated by the presentmembership of the United Nations."

This is Mr. Dulles' point of view. Now he goes on to say:

"If the Communist government of China in fact proves its ability to governChina without serious domestic resistance, then it, too, should be admittedto the United Nations."44

That was a statement of the Secretary of State. Of course, it is not quite fair toquote politicians who write things when they are out of office, but it is alegitimate argument; I happen to agree with it.

NOW THEN, WE COME TO THIS QUESTION OF GUILT. I am not going todeal with what the representative of Ceylon called the question of "guilt byassociation." The burden of this complaint is - I do not suppose it is allegations ofrepression and killing in China; probably there will have to be other occasions todiscuses that - that the United Nations, by a resolution, declared the Governmentof China an aggressor and therefore, it is argued that China should not berepresented here. In the second place, it was said by the representative ofColombia that, even today, the Chinese Government looks upon the interventionof the United Nations Command in Korea as an act of aggression and does notagree with the policy followed by the United Nations in that regard. Thirdly, therepresentative of Colombia, with imperfect memory, quoted the positions of Indiaon this matter...

The point which I am making is that the attitude of the General Assembly, inregard to ex-enemy countries and countries which are barred by previousresolutions, in our view, was adopted rightly and is in consonance with the marchof time. Therefore, there is no longer a case for arguing about a resolution whichwas passed in 1951. We have to take into account the fact that negotiations arestill going on between representatives of Governments which, publicly, as in law,will not speak to each other. Those are the facts that have to be taken intoaccount; so, if anyone argues that there is a resolution of 1951 in the case of onecountry, he must take into account other resolutions.

44 John Foster Dulles, War or Peace, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1950), page 190

I myself agree with the action which we have taken. I do not think we can live inthe past. I think that if people disagree with us, it is far more effective, far moreuseful from one’s own point of view, to bring them into society where we cantalk. But, again, we are not now discussing representation; and my real case isonly for the admission of this item.

Now we come to the other part. First I shall deal with the representative ofColombia’s allegations, arising from his imperfect memory, with regard to theattitude taken by Government. My Government voted for the action taken by theSecurity Council in regard to Korea. We were part of the United NationsCommission on Korea, and we have no apologies to make. To the best of ourability and far more than a great number of other countries, we made ourcontribution in the best way we could.

I do not suppose that the Assembly will ever lay the charge at the door of theGovernment of India that in the solution of the Korean problem India did notmake its contribution. We are still carrying some of its burdens. However thatmay be, the representative of Colombia by implication, or even directly, pointsout that we subscribed to the resolution which declared that North Korea was anaggressor. But I am not discussing North Korea; I am discussing China. As I saida while ago, that resolution was passed in 1950. We have taken a differentattitude in regard to similar resolutions, and I do not see why we should separatethe sheep from the goats. That is the position.

Secondly, India did not vote for the resolution that declared China an aggressor.If ever someone tells us that we said one thing and now are saying somethingdifferent, we have no objection to that if times have changed, but in this case thefacts are not correct.

Now we come to the weakest point of the argument advanced by therepresentative of Colombia. That is: where is the proof that the ChineseGovernment would act according to the Charter; has it, according to thephraseology of some people, purged its sins? Those of the delegations that wereat Bandung, those who have diplomatic relations with China, will appreciate thedepth of sincerity of the Chinese Government in its attachment to the Charter.They would challenge the decisions of the United Nations which were takenwithout consulting them, when they felt they were entitled to be consulted. Youmay agree with that position or you may not. I have not heard any statement bythe Chinese Government at any time which denied its acceptance of the Charter -the attitude that it adopted at Bandung was at all times to insist upon allegiance tothe Charter and to point out that the Conference was not something outside theCharter. There were no greater adherents to the Charter of the United Nations inthe Conference of Asian and African Nations than the People’s Government ofChina and its Prime Minister.

The other leg of this argument is that the Chinese Government still speaks aboutthe United Nations armies who fought in Korea, and that the armies sufferedsevere hardships and casualties. I say that after the war we must think of thecasualties on both sides. Two million people perished in North Korea; anothermillion probably perished in South Korea; so probably three million Koreans diedin one way or another. At least, that is the report. However, if the argument isthat a government disqualifies itself because it still criticises this action andregards the United Nations Command with belligerence, then we have a largenumber of other nations seated here which every year, on every occasion, expressthe same views. The Soviet delegations and others who think like them haverepeatedly said from this rostrum that they regarded the action of the UnitedNations Command as one of intervention and belligerency. For that reason theyare not regarded as unsuitable to be sitting here; and I hope the time does notcome when any responsible member of the Assembly would suggest otherwise.So this argument falls to the ground as a specious one that is trotted out in order tosupport a weak case.

I think it is very wrong to speak of the Chinese Government, the Government oflarge country with a civilisation that has an unbroken record of history for 4,000or 5,000 years, as though it was an adjunct of some other Government. Themodern Government of China has properly taken more care of the traditions andinstitutions in China than any previous Government. You have only to look at thepreservation of buildings, monuments, institutions, ideas, systems, thought,medicine and so on going on in China at the present time. Apart from all that, it iswrong politically to speak of the Chinese Government as through it were a kind ofadjunct of some other country, even though it be Soviet Union. There is nodisguising the fact - the Chinese Government would be the last to do so - that therelations between the Chinese Government and the Soviet Union are veryfriendly, even as the relations between the United States and India are friendly orthose between the United Kingdom and the United States are friendly - notalways, but most of the time. So to come here and say that the Soviet Union hasbeen guilty of misdeeds in Hungary and therefore this is not the proper time toconsider the question of the representation of China is to create with one’s ownhands an international body of a certain character, which other peoples are tryingto do away with. That is to say, on the one hand we are arguing against someinternational organisations, an international idea which opposes certain otherideas; and on the other hand we are trying to argue that anyone who is not with usis against us.

Therefore, to argue that the Chinese Government is in any way to be responsiblefor anything except its own acts, that its own acts reflect upon somebody else’s, isfirst of all to read erroneously and, if I may say so, unintelligently the history ofChina during the past thirty years from the time of Bukharin. What is more, it isnot dignified on the part of the Assembly just to ignore these facts in lookingupon this great nation and its great people, who are making a heroic effort notonly for their economic reconstruction, but in the service of the world community.

We Asian people have reason to look at China in a different way. We in India donot subscribe to the form of government in China, the predominating party inChina, the Community Party of China. There are other political parties; I havemet their representatives, and they were all alive when I saw them. We do notagree with that form of government, in the sense that we do not want it in ourcountry, but we think Chinese should be welcome to the form of government theywant.

While we are talking about misdeeds and so on, I make no adverse reflection.You have only to look at the twenty or thirty years that preceded 1949,particularly in the days of the decadence of the Kuomintang, when the countrywas steeped in corruption, in civil war, in fratricide and in the subjugation ofeverything that was decent. Today there is no corruption in China; even its worstenemies agree to that. It is one country in the world with not the least degree ofcorruption. But it is not for me here to give a testimonial to its character. We areconcerned about its international relations.

Only three days ago, the present Government of China, in friendly talks with theformer Prime Minister of Burma representing his own Government and in his owncapacity, resolved problems of frontier disputes between Burma and China whichhad been outstanding for many years and which are part of the legacy of themachinations of the Western Powers in that part of Asia when the UnitedKingdom Government was in possession of Burma. A very complicated situationhad been treated, and it has been resolved to the satisfaction of both sides. In thisrather sordid world of ours at the present time, threatened by war andrevolutionary change, it is consoling, it is news of some value and of some relief,to think that this powerful Government of China, which if it really wanted to useforce could use it against us or against Burma, perhaps successfully - the Burmesewould resist to the last man, but it would still be an unequal war - was not"negotiating from strength" in the usual sense. It was negotiating as betweenequals in accordance with the tenets of the five principles that they signed. In avery short time, not by protracted negotiations, not by ungraceful yielding, thetwo Governments came to an agreement to the satisfaction of both sides. WhenBurma was severely harassed by the armies of the Kuomintang, which wascommitting depredations in the territory, occupying 57,000 square miles, lootingits villages and destroying life, the Assembly intervened, and, thanks to theintervention of the United States, gradually liquidated that aggression; but the warwas waged by people who sit here, and they were not declared aggressors. At thattime the present Government of China would have been justified withininternational law in pursuing its enemies because this was a base to fight against itin Yunnan, but it did not do so, out of consideration for the Burmese Government.

Therefore, so far as we Asian people are concerned, we have no reason to thinkthat these people are expansionist or belligerent or imperialistic in any way. It istheir desire to live in peace with their neighbours.

Thirdly, in the context of South-East Asia, this Chinese Government, for the firsttime in Chinese history, faced up to the problem of people of Chinese origin inother countries. It is part of Chinese custom and, I believe, of Chinese law that aChinese person, no matter where he goes, remains a Chinese citizen. But thisGovernment, realising the impact and the repercussions of these matters, came toan agreement with the Government of Indonesia - and I believe, it finalised sucharrangements with the Government of Burma also - which proclaimed theposition that a person of Chinese birth or Chinese ancestry has to choose betweenChinese citizenship and citizenship of the country in which he is living. Thatrepresented a significant break with tradition, and it was made in the interests ofpeace and solidarity.

WE HAVE BEEN HAPPY IN OUR RELATIONS WITH CHINA - and that isnot because we agree with everything the Chinese say, not because we do nothave difficulties to resolve. We have a long 3,000-mile frontier with China, andwe have no armies on that frontier. We have checkposts and the Chinese havecheckposts. I have no doubt that one of their sentries might say "You have cometo the wrong side," and one of our sentries might say the same thing to them. Butwe have waged no wars, so far as we know, in the whole of our history. For3,000 years, we have had relations with China. The only Indians who ever wentinto China were emissaries of religion, culture or trade - and, in the same way, theonly Chinese who came to us were travellers and traders.

If we, who are on the frontiers of China and who would, therefore, have the mostto lose, felt that we were bringing into the community of nations a country thatwould run wild or that would be likely to break the law, we would be the first tostand up and say so. I hope that no one in the Assembly would attribute to us fearof a great neighbour. It is not in those conditions that we live.

We think that recognition of the legitimate Government of China as that qualifiedto sit - or, at any rate, the consideration of that problem - would be a great stepforward. I am no political prophet, but I venture to think that in a very short timethose who are now arguing against this will have to revise their positions, becauseone cannot simply ignore a vast country, with its vast economic strength, its vastmilitary strength, its great potential and, what is more, the allegiance it commandsin the hearts of people who think that a grave injustice is being done.

We shall still continue to disagree with the Chinese Government when it is seatedhere, as indeed we disagreed with it on many questions at Bandung, where weironed out our differences. That is no argument for keeping them out.

My colleague from Australia, Mr. Casey,45 made at the 579th meeting certainobservations relating to our amendments. I have no desire to prolong my

45 R. G. Casey, Minister of State for External Affairs of Australia

statement by going into that matter. All I can tell my old friend is that there is agood Australian custom of having one law for everybody, not one for the gooseand another for gander - although I do not say who is what. Mr. Casey spokeabout the iniquity of aggression. What representative of the AustralianGovernment can come to this rostrum in November 1956 and condemn forcewhen his Government has, without qualification, supported the aggressions of theFrench and British forces in Egypt? Apart from certain other considerations whichI have already put forth, it is insulting to our intelligence to have the AustralianGovernment come here and say that these people are guilty because they have notrenounced force.

Australia has very close and friendly relations with us and desires to make acontribution toward peaceful settlements in the Asian world. Australia isEuropean - that is, its people are European by birth. But they belong to the FarEast, and I think that the sooner they fully realise that, the better it will be for allof us. Geography is not a factor that can be ignored. I am happy to pay tribute tothe Australian Government for the way in which it is now dealing with thesituation in regard to Japan, forgetting all the cruelties and iniquities that theJapanese army inflicted on the Australian people. The same attitude has toprevail in regard to other peoples in that part of the world.

I deeply regret that the representative of Australia, after proclaiming support ofthe aggression of the French and British forces in Egypt, came here to lay thischarge of aggression at the door of somebody else.

I THINK I HAVE COVERED THE OBSERVATIONS THAT HAVE BEENMADE in regard to us. There is just one other point, having to do with UnitedNations resolutions - and this argument, I hope, will at least commend itself to theLatin American representatives. They have always been sticklers for law; theyhave always been the first to come forward and say that they will support the lawof the United Nations and its resolutions. I should now like to refer to resolution369 (V), adopted at the fifth session of the General Assembly, which lays downthe rules in regard to disputed representation. This is what it says:

"The General Assembly,...

"Considering that, in virtue of its composition, the General Assembly isthe organ of the United Nations in which consideration can best be givento the views of all member States in matters affecting the functioning ofthe Organisation as a whole,

"1. Recommends that, whenever more than one authority claims to be thegovernment entitled to represent a member State, the United Nations" -and that is the case here - "and this question becomes the subject of

controversy in the United Nations, the question should be considered inthe light of the Purposes and Principles of the Charter and thecircumstances of each case;

"2. Recommends that, when any such question arises, it should beconsidered by the General Assembly, or by the Interim Committee if theGeneral Assembly is not in session."

I shall not read the rest of the resolution; it is open to members of the Assembly toread it if they wish.

In other words, the Assembly, having gone deeply into this problem, asks that youshould consider the matter. And all that I am asking, in so far as this item isconcerned, is that you adhere to paragraph 2 of the operative part of resolution396 (V), which was widely supported.

There is no use disguising the fact that, if this question came up on its merits asthe Assembly is presently constituted, the vote would go against any movement toalter the representation of China immediately. But the fact remains that thequestion has to be considered. The fact remains that events are marching. Howcan the important problem of disarmament be considered if we are not able to talkto the Chinese face to face? How can we consider excluding a country whichprobably has an army of 5 million, which probably is armed for its defenceagainst any attack by the Formosa authorities and their allies - and vice versa?How are we going to consider the problem of atomic development, how are wegoing to consider the problem of disarmament?

Apart from all that, however, I believe that there are a great many of us - if not allof us - who are moved by humanitarian considerations. China is a country whichrequires, more than any other, or at least as much as any other, technicalassistance and health assistance and everything else that is needed to reconstruct acountry that has been ravaged by war for the last thirty years. It should not beforgotten that civil war raged in China for twenty-five years, and the men whoare presently in the Government did not come to power as a result of a coup, butby mobilising the support of their people. The army was not only fighting itsenemy but was also reconstructing the country, establishing co-operatives,establishing schools - a moving army of reformers in the country. But China, Irepeat, is a country ravaged by war, by need, by boycotts on the part of othercountries, a nation where diseases had to be eradicated. And the use of thespecialised agencies of the United Nations, the bringing of China into theInternational Atomic Energy Agency, the inclusion of China in any considerationof the problem of disarmament and peace are matters that are vital to us, notmerely to China. Any country in the world that is afflicted by disease or epidemicis a danger not to itself alone, but to everyone else as well. It is not possible forus today, in this shrunken world, to be happy by ourselves. We have to takeeverybody else into consideration.

Therefore, I think this is not a matter where we should go into predilection andprejudice. It is a matter where we ought to have the courage of our convictions,and the courage to realise that there are enough of us here - the vast majority ofpeople here, if not the whole of us - who are able to maintain the provisions andthe principles of the Charter.

We have been told, the other day in the General Committee and later here, that itis the present representative of China who is a founder of the United Nations.This, I think, is a misreading of the Charter, and it is the kind of interpretationwhich should never be made before the United Nations General Assembly. I askrepresentatives to look at the first page of the Charter. What does it say? It says,"We the peoples of the United Nations," and among the peoples of the UnitedNations are the Chinese - 525 millions of them, over whom the present repre-sentatives have no authority. So it is the peoples of the United Nations who saidthis, although I am not saying that the representation can be other than byGovernments.

I ask representatives to turn to Article 3. What does it say? It says, "The originalmembers of the United Nations shall be the States which (have) participated in theUnited Nations Conference on International Organisation..." The people whowrote this knew what they were writing, one must assume. Why did they not say,"The original members of the United Nations shall be the Governments" - or "theindividuals" - "that have participated in the United Nations Conference?" But theysaid that they should be the States which had participated, and it is axiomatic inpolitical science that States do not die. Governments are transient, a fact which agreat many of us know and are apprehensive about, but States do not die. OneGovernment takes on from another. When there is a revolution or a coup, a greatdeal has to be taken over, and the classical, the accepted and even the moderndefinition of a State is a territorial community composed of people who both owehabitual obedience to a Government and are able to perform their obligationstowards their neighbours. All these conditions China satisfies.

But it is not necessary for me to argue all this. You can argue it when the item isbefore you. What I plead with you is not to shut your eyes to a problem, not torefuse to discuss it, not to proclaim to the world that you are afraid to look thefacts in the face, not to establish the dictum that if you shut your eyes the factsfade away. The question of China has to be discussed. We have discussed it atgreat length this time, in spite of the fact that you have not wanted to discuss it.The very fact that all these arguments have come in when we are only discussingthe inclusion of an item, the weight of delegations that has been brought in toargue for and against it, and the very diversity of arguments that has been adducedmerely proclaim the fact that there is an inescapable fact.

There is the instance of the relations with the Soviet Union, when the Westerncountries, the European countries and the American countries for a long time

refused recognition but finally had to recognise it. This - and the whole traditionof American and British systems of law in the way of recognising countries,which are the Governments - is the more common sense approach we shouldmake to this problem.

Who among us here can say that our Governments were not established byrevolution of one kind or another? The United States should be the last to argueagainst a government established by force or by revolution. Otherwise its historymust be rewritten, and its traditions also must stand change. None of us isashamed of the fact that we have supplanted other regimes which are not suitablefor the times - though they may or may not have been good in their own day.

Therefore, I ask the Assembly to adhere to the resolution it adopted during thefirst session whereby it decided to take into account the facts that exist in theworld, and not to proclaim to the world that it is afraid to face realities and that itwill not discuss a problem because it does not like the look it, for that is thedecision which the Assembly would be talking... For Heaven’s sake let us notshut our eyes and minds to facts and let us be capable of listening to views thatare against our own.


[In 1958, the General Committee again adopted a United States draft resolutionrecommending that the General Assembly decide to reject the request of India toinclude an item on the representation of China in the agenda, and not to considerat the current session any proposal to seat the representatives of the People’sRepublic of China.

India, together with six other countries, moved amendments (A/L.245) to includethe item in the agenda and reject the second recommendation of the GeneralCommittee.]

...The draft resolution recommended by the General Committee for adoption bythe General Assembly is a unique procedure which has never been applied in anycase in the history of the United Nations since the second part of the first session.Until that time, there were no rules of procedure. Anyway, this draft resolution isbefore us. I will deal with it in parts because I believe that here two different draftresolutions have been put together as one. The first part is merely a rejection ofthe request that the Government of India has made. It reads, in part, "Decides to

46 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages57-61

reject the request of India..." With great respect, I submit that this did not requirea resolution or a clause of a resolution; it only required an adverse vote! But thedraft resolution is before us, and therefore I propose to deal with it.

I say here, as I said before the General Committee, that the Committee was notentitled to submit this part of the draft resolution because the previous resolutionof the General Assembly, resolution 396 (V), definitely laid down certainprocedures in this regard. I agree with anyone that the Assembly at one sessioncannot be bound for all time by decisions taken at another session. But our rule isthat once an Assembly has adopted a resolution, that resolution has to berescinded if it is to be disregarded.

TO UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION BEST, IT WILL BE NECESSARY to gointo some of the background of the whole problem...

In October 1949, the present Government of China made application to theSecurity Council in regard to representation. On November 18, 1949, theForeign Minister, Chou En-lai, who is now the Prime Minister of the Governmentof China, sent a letter to the United Nations (A/1123). No action was taken,however. Subsequently, the Security Council was asked to consider the matter byone of the permanent members of the Council. But it so happened that Mr.Tsiang, who was the representative of the other side, was President. He ruled thatthe document might be circulated, and no discussion took place at that time.

The matter came back to the Security Council at its 461st meeting on January 13,1950. The draft resolution for the recognition of the new China, in sum andsubstance, was rejected by six votes - Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, the UnitedStates of America and the China represented in the Security Council - to three -India, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia - with two abstentions which aresignificant today - the United Kingdom and Norway.

The debate went on. The then Secretary-General, at the end of the next meetingor at a subsequent time, decided to examine this proposal and he submitted amemorandum (S/1466) to the United Nations on the principle of therepresentation of States. I have no desire to go on into detail on this matterbecause the document enters into the merits of the question of representation inthe United Nations.

The problem before us is whether this item shall be discussed and not who shouldbe represented in the United Nations. But Mr. Trygve Lie’s memorandum is amatter of great importance because it deals not only with China or Timbuktu; itdeals with the general problem of who is entitled to represent a country.

In 1950 the Security Council was again convened. This time the President was arepresentative of the Soviet Union. This time, too, he was on the other side.

After some preliminary discussion the provisional agenda circulated by thePresident was discussed and on that provisional agenda was the recognition of therepresentation of the Central People’s Government of China. As a result of theprocedural debate which lasted three full days, the item on Chinese representationwas removed from the agenda. But how? By a vote of five in favour of removal,five against with Egypt alone, that time, abstaining.

I go into all these details, first of all to show how old the problem is, to show thatthere has been some doubt about it for a very long time. Otherwise, it would bequite improper for a representative to come here and to say that the credentials ofa representative should be examined. There is, however, a long history behindthis case. That is one reason. The second is that from all that I have read out toyou, each time there has been a vote on it, there has never been an overwhelmingdecision either way!

Before this item came to the General Assembly for the first time in 1950, an adhoc committee was set up to examine what should be done in the event of twoparties claiming the same seat. That can often happen. Normally, it should bedecided by the Credentials Committee. But when political questions are involved,the Credentials Committee - which really examines the technicalities ofrepresentation, whether the signatures are right, whether the identities are thesame, and so on - may not be adequate. Whatever the reason, an ad hocCommittee was appointed and on 14 December 1950 the General Assemblyadopted resolution 396 (V).

There are two or three paragraphs in the preamble of the resolution which, ifnecessary, I can read out. But I do not think it is essential for the consideration ofthe matter. The preamble simply refers to importance of the matters. Then comethe following two operative paragraphs:

"1. Recommends that, whenever more than one authority claims to be thegovernment entitled to represent a member State in the United Nationsand this question becomes the subject of controversy in the UnitedNations, the question should be considered in the light of the Purpose andPrinciples of the Charter and the circumstances of each case;

"2. Recommends that, when any such question arises, it should beconsidered by the General Assembly or by the Interim Committee if theGeneral Assembly is not in session;"

It is my submission therefore that what has happened in the last two or three yearshere is ultra vires, not only of the Charter, as I shall point out later, but of thisdecision of the Assembly itself. The Assembly has taken a decision and unlesswe rescind that decision by proper procedures, any problem of this kind wheretwo parties contest the same seat and find themselves in such a position must firstof all be decided in the light of the Charter. But paragraph 2, which governs the

whole thing, states that it should be considered by the General Assembly. That isall we are asking you to do.

In casting a vote for the position I am putting forward, no one is committinghimself to endorsement of present regime in China or any of its actions. No oneis saying that as a result of that vote, the representation should be changed. Theplain issue before us at the present time - I am not going into the merits of it - iswhether the Assembly, on an issue of this character, the gravity of which I shallpoint out to the extent that is necessary later, should have the right of freediscussion. By covering up this matter, by evading an issue, do we really solveanything? Is it not the right of the members of the Assembly, of world publicopinion and of the parties concerned on either side, that there should be open andfree discussion of this matter?...

SO FAR AS THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IS CONCERNED, its position isvery clear. It does not want to include this item simply for the sake of discussingit. It wants this matter to be considered because it gravely concerns the peace ofthe world, stability and order in the Far East, and the implementation of thepurposes and principles of the Charter. What is more, it merely takes into accountthe realities of the situation. The Charter stipulates obligations, and it is only aGovernment which, in the classical Austinian definition, is able to command thehabitual obedience of the citizens of the State that is able to deliver the goods. IfCharter obligations are to be carried out - and this has been pointed out manytimes in disarmament debates and elsewhere - and if any decision in regard to thatvast land of 630 million people is to be implemented, it requires the consent, co-operation and implementation of the Government that can carry it out.

Therefore, as far as the Government of India is concerned, while the issue beforethe Assembly is the inclusion of an item, when that item is included we shall pointout why it is necessary to effect an alteration in the representation. It is not aquestion of admitting a new member State. If that were the case, it would go firstto the Security Council. China is a member of the United Nations. China is afounder member of the United Nations. China carries with it the obligation of apermanent member of the United Nations responsible for world security. Thosewho vote on behalf of China can veto a resolution, can hold up the proceedings ofthe Security Council. They are among the five great statesmen who areresponsible for the business of this Organisation.

China is a founder member. To say that China is a founder member does notmean that this or that government of China is a founder member. Article 3 of theCharter stipulates that members of the United Nations are States, notGovernments, and the State of China, in our humble submission, is notrepresented here. Therefore, we seek to establish a prima facie case in that way,because the objection to discussing this matter, to which I shall briefly refer, isthat it is a controversial issue. I do not think that there are many issues before the

Assembly that are not controversial. I do not think it is right for us to avoid anissue because it is controversial; the serious consideration of this matter is integralto the maintenance of peace in the world. The issues will not disappear justbecause we refuse to look at them.

Secondly, if, as we think, the present Government of China, its composition andpolitical and economic policies are not the concern of this Organisation, if thatGovernment is in the position of being able to command the habitual obedience ofits citizens, and if it is recognised by large numbers of people in the world, thenthe question arises as to whether it is right and ethical to exclude it from theOrganisation. Here I would like to give some figures.

Of the member States of this Organisation, 29 recognise the People’s Republic ofChina. The Government of the People’s Republic of China has trade relationswith at least 68 other countries. The countries which recognise that Governmenthave a population of 1,040 million. If one adds to that figure the population of thePeople’s Republic of China itself, which today is 639 million, one arrives at afigure of 1,679 million people out of a total world population of 2,737 million, ora majority of the world population.

We cannot, of course, come here and argue in terms of population, because theUnited Nations is based upon the conception of one State having one voice andone vote, which we do not challenge. But in deciding theses matters one has torefer to their impact, and to the great causes which lie behind them.

Therefore, I want to submit that in ignoring these views we are really ignoring theviews of a large majority of the population of the world. But suppose we dismissthat argument and say that it is only a minority which takes this view - 29countries last year, 25 countries the year before that, and a fewer number beforethat. There has been an increasing number every year asking for the considerationof this problem. I wish to ask you, Mr. President, can an Organisation such asours survive in prestige, survive in conformity with the principles of the Charteror in accordance with the ideas of free discussion and the protection of minorityviews, when a large group of countries - 29 of them want a question debated,some abstain and the remainder do not want the question debated, and the issue isnot discussed? I submit that this suppression of the point of view of a very largeand significant minority is not good. No one expects a minority view to carried,and no one expects a minority to become a majority as a result of a debate here,but the minority does have the right to put forward its views. It is largely in thehands of the President and of the General Assembly to see to it that these minorityviews are expressed.

I am very surprised not to hear some of those member States which have longbeen wedded to liberal traditions and which have long traditions of parliamentarygovernments, such as the United Kingdom, come forward today and say, "Rightor wrong, let us look into this matter because a large number of member States

here have a point of view which should be heard."

The reason for not allowing this question to be discussed is said to be that talkingabout it might create some difficulties. Well, that is no longer true. I believe thatthere are some 22 or 25 speakers inscribed on the list already. If it is the idea ofsome that we should keep the People’s Republic of China out of the UnitedNations because of the resolution on the Korean War or because of its form ofgovernment or because of the behaviour with which it has been charged, the factremains that it is one of the great Powers of the world with an enormouspopulation and with considerable economic weight. We cannot put a country ofthat type out of bounds. To put China out of bounds is really to put ourselves outof bounds.

China and India are close neighbours. We do not agree with everything which theChinese Government does, and I do not suppose that they agree with everythingthat we do. We have a common frontier with them and it is our hope that thecommon frontier will be maintained without any war. We practically havecommon seas. It is our desire, and I am sure that it is the desire of our neighbours,to maintain these peaceful relations, and it is up to the United Nations to assist usand not to allow present tensions to continue.

I submit this item with a grave sense of responsibility. The Government of Indiasubmitted this item in June of this year and there has been sufficient opportunityfor members to review their decision. I think it is only fair to say that we evenreviewed the question just before the Assembly was to begin, following the recentevents which have taken place. It is our very considered view that the discussionof this problem is necessary and can do nothing but good. It will enable someprogress to be made towards the solution of difficulties that are at presentunresolved...


[This statement was made in exercise of the right of reply to the debate.]

...The main objection is that discussion is not timely. Now, that is merely amatter of opinion. Not even those who have said that discussion is not timelyhave denied the urgency of this problem. I think the foremost exponent of thisview, though his speech was very brief, is Sir Pierson Dixon of the UnitedKingdom, who said that the deep division of opinion on this subject in the UnitedNations would embitter the Assembly’s proceedings. This might have been true

47 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages101-06

three days ago, but we have had an expression of the alignments of opinion and ofthe strong feelings in this matter. Therefore a proper discussion would only assistin bringing the subject into proper proportions and perspectives whereby the caseson either side could be put...

I should like to say again that if the item were on the agenda it would enable thosewho are so sure of the untimeliness of this matter, who have been throwing darkand sometimes not-so-dark hints about all the implications of this problem, to airtheir views much better. My friend, the representatives of the United States, saidthat if he really wanted to argue the substance of the matter, there were verypersuasive arguments which would make the Assembly reject this item or rejectthe whole proposition when the time came. If those arguments are so"persuasive" - and the representative of the United States is not without influenceor without the power of voice, or the power of persuasion - why does he not comeand try to persuade? Is this not a place for persuasion? It is a place for askingpeople whom you may influence and with whom you may argue to accept yourviews, not to shut their minds to a problem that is so difficult, that is so full ofgrave implications. It is not as if the representative of the United States thoughthe had a weak case. He thinks he has a strong case, and what is more, a casewhich will persuade the Assembly. I do not say in what way; he says he canpersuade. Then, why not try persuasion?...

But I think the strongest argument in favour of free speech has come from therepresentative Ireland... He also recognised that this is a question of majorimportance when he said "There can be no doubt that the situation in the Far Eastnot only affected the interests of China and Korea, but is an immediate threat tolocal peace and to world peace indeed, I wonder whether refusal to discuss it inprevious years may not have contributed to the present dangerous situation in theFar East."

I should also like to refer to some other statements made recently which are ofvery great importance because they come from sources which should commandrespect in this Assembly.

The Prime Minister of Norway, not so long, on 21 September, I believe, after thisproblem was before the General Committee, said in an interview:

“It is an absurd situation that the world’s most heavily populated countryis not represented in the United Nations.

"It is hard to imagine that any easing of relations in the Far East can beachieved unless a responsible solution of the question of China’smembership of the United Nations is found."...

I do not know what commentary history will pass on this. There have been manycomic opera scenes in the march of history, but this would be perhaps one of the

biggest of them where, as I said the other day, the seat of a permanent member ofthe Security Council, of one of the five stewards of the security of the world so faras the United Nations is concerned, is occupied by individuals who do notrepresent their country; and, what is more, those who represent that country areexcluded from that seat.

I have no desire to speak at length in order to controvert each argument that hasbeen adduced. In fact, there are no arguments to controvert. I have been in thisAssembly during most of the debate and I have looked at all the speeches. Theonly real arguments that have come up are, first, that discussion would beuntimely; secondly, that it may add to tension; and, thirdly, that China hasdisqualified itself by its conduct.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSEMBLY HAS ALSO TO LOOK at thesentiments of people who are very near to China, those who, for the last few years- some of them, like us, from 1949 onwards and others more recently - haveestablished diplomatic, trade and other relations with China. It is not right for theAssembly to disregard those sentiments because they are the sentiments of peoplewho speak from first- hand experience...

To us, it is not an academic question. We are not wedded to any continentalcompartmentalisms. But neighbourhood, distance, geography and culturalaffinity have impacts upon the relationship of nations - we are no exception. Oursecurity, our future and our capacity to develop depend very largely upon thestability in the Far East, and we would like representatives of Europe and ofcountries of the American continent at least to carry away with them theimpression that in taking the attitude they are taking they are isolating themselvesto a very considerable extent from the large continents of Asia and Africa.

Then we had an expression of views which we were asked to imagine were theviews of the United States. Here I want to say that, while it is true every countryhas one vote, that we are all equal, sovereign States in this Assembly and that ourstatus may be equal, in political affairs equality of status does not always meanequality of function. It would be unrealistic to ignore the economic or thepolitical importance or the moral power of great States. Therefore, my country hasgreat respect for the views of the United States and, if I may say so, even for someof its predilections. We are prepared to understand its difficulties.

But I think it would be wrong for this Assembly to think that public opinion in theUnited States is not equally exercised by this problem. We have here statementsof people who have been in important positions. Mr. Dean Acheson, the formerSecretary of State of the United States, whom history will not characterise asbeing a partisan of China or a partisan of pacification, much less appeasement inthe Far East because it was during his time that great troubles began, said:

"The important fact is that always, until the present civil war, the off-shoreislands - Quemoy, Little Quemoy and Matsu - have been controlled by thesame Power which controlled the adjacent coast."

... Mr. Acheson stated further:

"These, whatever may be said of Formosa, are the coastal islands, as areLong Island, Staten Island and Martha’s Vineyard. Their population isminimal. The only purpose of their being held by a force hostile to themainland Government is to block the mainland harbour of Amoy and tooffer a threat as an invasion base."

Coming form such a source, the characterisation that the occupation of theseislands by those who now occupy them is a threat to the integrity of China mustcarry some weight with this Assembly...

Then we are told that war of aggression has begun and that China is trying toshoot its way into the United Nations. Whatever we may think of the Chinese, weshould not think that they are so foolish as to believe that you can shoot your wayinto an Organisation of this kind. But here, I think, a statement by a formerSenator of the United States, Senator Lehman, is important. He said:

"One-third of the General Chiang's total military forces are now stationedon these islands. Indeed, the very presence of this preponderant portion ofChiang's fighting forces on Quemoy and Matsu, an open provocation toRed China, has been cited by President Eisenhower as a justification forour defence of the islands.

"We cannot oppose the use of force by Red China and at the same timesupport the threat of force by Chiang Kai-shek.

"These islands have no strategic value except possibly for aggressivepurposes against the mainland of China."

Is this Assembly to be geared into the war intentions of a group of people who areerroneously regarded as the representatives of China in this Assembly? That isthe issue we have to face...

SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE are likely togive the impression that there is a terrific attack going on and that the ChineseGovernment wantonly started a war in the hope that it would develop into a largerwar in which that Government might gain some strength or get other Powersbehind it. And here we have a statement by Mr. Lodge, who said, no doubt onauthority, no doubt on the basis of information which he has:

"They have fired some 300,000 rounds of high explosive shells at theIsland of Quemoy. That is in the neighbourhood of three rounds of highexplosive for every man, woman and child on the islands. This barrageagainst Quemoy, which was started less than a month ago, recalls theattempted invasion in October 1949 and the attack against Quemoy inSeptember 1954. In this latest barrage, 1,000 civilians have already beenkilled."

Incidentally, the year 1954 is important, I shall return to it.

Mr. Lodge goes on: "We think that this is not only a further disqualification to beadded to the already long list in so far as United Nations membership isconcerned, but we think...", and so on and so forth.

Now, what are the facts? There is no evidence that this amount of warfare isgoing on except in propagandist minds and in the pages of certain newspapers...

I usually do not quote Time magazine but, since this quotation comes from anadverse source, it may have some value, because if this magazine could have saidthe reverse, it would have done so. This article from Time reads.

"Peking’s ultimatum was backed up by the thunder or the heaviestsustained artillery barrage the world has been since the Korean war."

That is not a long time; if they had said "since 1914," I could have understood it.

"Day after day, Red Chinese batteries rained 152-mm. and 122-mm.shells on Quemoy ....It was a heavy shelling, but hardly the 122,000rounds estimated by Nationalist headquarters in Taipei. Nationalistsreported about 700 civilian and military causalities killed and wounded."

Then, a week later, on 15 September, Time reported:

"The Quemoy we saw in the three days and nights before the Chinesenationalist plane flew us out did not look as though it has been plasteredwith 140,000 rounds of artillery. Only four shells have hit Quemoy city,where by day life goes on as usual in narrow streets lined by two-storeyhouses...

"In those parts of the island lying nearest to the communist guns, everyother house has been hit. Yet, surprisingly few have been demolished.Officially, 6,000 houses have been damaged, 600 totally destroyed.Civilian dead since Aug. 23 now approaches 40."

...I should like to say that what goes on in the off-shore islands is part of therevolutionary war that has gone on far the last thirty years. There is nothing new

in this. As I say, it has been going on for a long time, even through it has beenslowed at times in the hope of negotiations...

I should like to go a little into the present situation. I would want to remind theAssembly that this situation is in all conscience very serious. At the time of theKorean war my Government - we claim no credit for it and have not castourselves in the position of a general intelligence bureau for the world, or asmediators - in a similar situation conveyed information to the relevant quarterswhich, if it had been heeded, might perhaps have had the result of preventing theextension of the sphere of that war.

In connection with Quemoy, reference has been made to 1954. In 1955, whenChou En-lai came to Bandung, he proclaimed to the world, after variousconversations had taken place, that China desired to settle the problem of Taiwanby peaceful negotiations, and he also suggested direct negotiations with theparties concerned, by which he meant Chiang Kai-shek on the one hand, and theUnited States on the other. Helpful developments took place, although they didnot go so far as they might have done. A first group of prisoners was released,and some attempt was made to set up negotiations. Unfortunately, thosenegotiations were not stepped up to the level where they could have yielded fullresults. But it is interesting to note that all the time those negotiations were goingon there was quiet on Quemoy.

In the early part of this year, I believe, the Geneva conversation terminated. Atthe same time the troubles in Quemoy began all over again, and somewhere in theearly part of August troubles began in the Straits. We hold no brief for theconduct of the Chinese Government - it is a sovereign Government and does notrequire our special pleading - but it is our duty, especially since that Governmentis absent from this Assembly, to place before you such information as we in goodfaith believe to be true: in the early part of August, intervention in the inlandwaters of China began, and on 23 August, artillery responses were begun from theChinese mainland by the Government there. It has to be remembered that at thebeginning of this period the Formosan authorities had 30,000 persons on Quemoy.At the present time they have 80,000 persons on Quemoy and 115,000 on all theoff-shore islands together.

Now, where does the aggression lie? Here is a vast country, with a Governmentthat is the proper authority, threatened on its own territory and so near itsmainland, by very nearly one-third or one-half of the army of the Nationalistforces on Formosa and by the augmentation of those troops from 30,000 t0115,000. I suppose that in the normal course of things a Government would take -I do not say should take - some steps toward self-protection.

That is the genesis of the present trouble. What I would point out to theAssembly is that the trouble did not begin because this item was coming beforethe United Nations. It did not begin because there was any other particular

development in the world. All that took place was the breakdown of certainnegotiations which were going on between the Chinese themselves - thegovernment elements and the Kuomintang elements. After all, this is a Chinesebusiness. There are two Chinese parties, and this is the continuation of a greatcivil war...

Therefore, when those negotiations in Geneva broke down and it appeared,therefore, that there was no possibility of negotiated settlements, those who werelikely to benefit from war took to other methods. There was intervention in theinland waters of China and a vast augmentation of the troops there. It would beimproper for me to read out the strength of forces in other places in the Taiwanarea. All this led to the present situation, a situation of great implications. Ourinformation is that at the present time it is the wisdom and the strength of theUnited States that restrains the Nationalist forces from any adventurous exploitsby air on the mainland. We hope that the influence will continue. But in asituation of this kind and, especially when one is fighting a losing battle andfighting for a cause which has no moral backing, it is not always possible to relyon the losing party submitting to restraint in that way. If some forces should belet loose, then, given the fact that various sides are armed with weapons of adiabolic character, the world would find itself in a very ominous situation. That iswhy, in spite of various appeals and in spite of our hearing all the argumentsabout untimeliness, we have thought it necessary to place before the UnitedNations the fact that we are facing a situation which, if not handled wisely, canlead to a catastrophe.

The position with regard to Quemoy is no different from that which arose whenthe Chinese Government took the Tachen Islands some time ago. That was notregarded as a war of aggression, but the Tachen Islands were taken. We arefirmly convinced at the present time that the position taken up at Bandung by theChinese Prime Minister still holds and that a peaceful settlement of this problemis possible provided there is a peaceful approach on all sides. No other solution ofthe problem is possible because after a war there would be no more problems tosettle. If the correct approach is made, it is possible to bring about a degree ofunderstanding on this question. And if the talks in Warsaw do not proceed on thebasis of preconditions that neither side can accept, then it is possible that therecould be understanding, and the so-called Taiwan problem and the tension in theTaiwan Strait could be settled by negotiation, as was suggested in 1955 to theparties concerned.

But negotiations relating to the integral territory of a country are a very differentproblem. I have no desire to drag out this discussion any further. I do not knowwhether it is proper for me to go into it in any greater detail, but up-to-dateinformation from China seems to indicate that if those parties which think that thedanger of war would benefit them are restrained, and if we accept the fact that thisis very largely a matter of two Chinese parties, it is possible for the ChineseGovernment and the Formosan authorities to come to an agreement in their own

way, with regard to themselves and their own motherland, and we should leavethem to it. This does not mean that the world is not concerned about any acts ofcruelty on either side, but there are ways and means of dealing with such thingswhich are not beyond the political powers of men.

When Quemoy and the adjoining island of Amoy, were harassed, it was not onlyChinese shipping which suffered. In the last few years United Kingdom shippinghas been subjected to bombing by the Nationalist forces. And on 19 August, thedate on which certain military events took place in that area, Amoy wasfrequently bombarded and suffered much damage, and Chinese shipping wasinterfered with. China began the artillery bombardment on 23 August, with theresults that we know.

MY GOVERNMENT IS NOT IN FAVOUR of settling any problem by the use offorce, even when there is a question of legitimate rights, but we have no right toexpect that every Government will take that view. When China expresses itspeaceful intentions, it must be accepted at its word. That would be the best part ofwisdom, and I think that in the agreement to renew ambassadorial talks at Warsawwe have an earnest of those intentions. It is up to all parties concerned to makethose ambassadorial talks as fruitful as possible and not leave it at theambassadorial stage.

My Government, while it has no role in this matter of mediation, has always beenat the disposal of any party, and would be prepared to use its good offices, forwhat that is worth, to assist in reducing tensions. There are, of course, problemsin relation to the large forces that are now occupying Quemoy Island and thefuture of those forces. I can only say that these problems are not insoluble. Whilethe situation continues to be grave and may well lead to a larger conflict whichmay in turn degenerate into a widespread war and which might be impossible tolocalise - I do not say it will be impossible, I say it might be impossible - thesituation offers every reason for hope, because the history of the past three yearshas shown us that it is possible for us to obtain the Chinese Government’sadherence to the statement made at Bandung that these problems will be settledby peaceful negotiation.

Peaceful negotiation would be assisted if the Chinese people could think that theGeneral Assembly is looking at this problem rather than ignoring it. We havebrought this item before the Assembly year after year. It is not a sort of veryhardy annual; this year it is more important than any other. The speeches thathave been made here have shown the concern of many people, and I would askthose who are wavering not to cast their vote so as to make the Chinese peoplethink that there is no response from our side to this attitude of peacefulnegotiation. I am not here either to plead as to whether actions are all right or allwrong. That would be very improper for me to do. But my Government isconvinced that, if we choose the right approach, if the Assembly shows that it is

not ignoring this problem - in fact the world cannot settle down, nor any of itsproblems be solved if the 639 million Chinese people are ignored - we can find asettlement...

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, September 22,

195948

[The procedural situation in the General Assembly in 1959 was similar tothat in 1958, except that the amendments (A/L.261) to the recommendationof the General Committee were submitted by Nepal.]

...I should now like to refer to the fact of our repetitive appearances on thisrestroom on this subject. It has now become an annual subject but it is by nomeans a hardy annual in the sense that a hardy annual means that there is noflexibility about it and nothing has changed, that it is merely a kind of habit ofours to bring it up. That is not the position...

Reference has been made to recent incidents - and I do not want to mince mywords - these recent incidents refer to the rebellion in Tibet and the handling of itby the Chinese Government in ways that have shaken public opinion in ourcountry and has also stirred people elsewhere. This is not the occasion either togo into the constitutionality or otherwise of various issues. I want to say thatthere is considerable public feeling in our land on this matter and therefore we arenot speaking without emotion or on strictly legalistic grounds.

The second is about our frontiers. Various speakers have spoken differently as tothe invasion of India, or the incursions into India or aggression on our frontiers.We certainly appreciate the concern of people about the integrity of India. I wishthis concern had been expressed when other violations took place, when year afteryear we went before the Security Council and sat there to witness ten out of theeleven members supporting aggression. Therefore, it is not merely the concernabout aggression against India. But I shall put that on one side. Let us look at itthis way: the Government of India cannot accept the position the delegations here,all eighty-one of you, barring us, are more concerned about the integrity of oursoil than we are. I think it is doing us a disfavour in suggesting that anyone elsecould be more concerned about the integrity of our country than we are.

So far as the Chinese are concerned, we have told them in plain words that, whilewe were prepared to discuss any question, however difficult it is, while we wereprepared to make adjustments and compromises and while our policy remains oneof continuing friendship and settling matters by negotiation, we shall not be

48 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Fourteenth Session, Plenary Meetings,pages 89-94

intimidated, we shall not yield our territory, and we shall not permit unilateralaction with regard to unsettled disputes. That is our position. Therefore, as far asChina is concerned, we tell them that if there are disputes, "we shall sit down andtalk like civilised people and friendly Governments and that these matters are notto be settled unilaterally."

Thus, on the one hand the Government of India is firm in the policy of themaintenance of its sovereignty. What is more, the 2,000 miles of our frontier - itis our frontier, and we should be expected to know about it as much as anyoneelse. If there is a strong country on the other side and it represents a menace or amatter of concern for us, I think the Government of India must be regarded ashaving sufficient sense of maturity and political judgement to know itsconsequences. At the same time, we are sufficiently mature and sufficientlydevoted to the purposes of the Charter and the general orientation of the UnitedNations not to create a war psychosis. We have no desire to exaggerate eventsany more than to minimise them. As my Prime Minister said, it is not a questionof two mountain tops or some grazing rights or anything of that kind. When apeople feel that their country has been treaded upon, there is an emotionaluprising among the people, and therefore we shall resist. At the same time, weshall not permit either in our country or elsewhere the situation to be used tobecome one in which the peace of the world is affected. The reason, therefore, forour bringing this item here is obviously not our self-interest.

We are asked, "In view of your disillusionment about China, then why do youbring this item here? There again, I submit, that it is not, shall I say, a verygenerous way of looking at us. We do not bring the question of China herebecause China is our neighbour or because China is on friendly and diplomaticrelation with us. We asked countries like the United States, for example, orvarious other countries who have hostile feelings towards China, if you like, quitelegitimately perhaps, who are unfriendly to her, who do not regard China astrustworthy, who regard China has having committed aggression, we have askedthem in the past to let China take her place here. We have said, "This may be so,we do not want to change your opinion of China; but you must allow her to comehere." Now, if it is sauce for them, it must be equally sauce for us!

We could not come here this year and say, "we have had a bit of trouble on ourfrontier, so the whole basis of our approach to the United Nations on a particularquestion has changed." If that is the attitude Governments take in this Assembly,then this Assembly cannot hope to make progress. Therefore, I think, if anything,we deserve a degree of appreciation from a large number of people, that evenwhen we ourselves have been hurt, we were willing to bring up this question ofprinciple in the interests of the United Nations and in the interests of world peaceand co-operation. That, Mr. President, is our position.

If we thought that we should not bring up this matter here this year, it could beonly because there was a change in our foreign policy, in its fundamentals, or

because we think principles are so elastic that they can be forgotten when one’sown interests are concerned. That is not the position so far as we are concerned.

THIS MATTER BEING A SERIOUS ONE and with consequences not only inthe debates here but everywhere else, I should like to present as fully as possiblethe point of view of my Government. It is not, as someone has suggested, that wehave put down this item on the provisional agenda before the troubles which therehave been, occurred, and that if we had had any apprehensions that they wouldoccur, we would not have done so. Actually, this item was submitted to thisAssembly in June, long after the troubles in Tibet took place - these recent ones,not only the older ones of previous years. After deliberate and due considerationswe put down this item. So, there is no question of our having made a mistake inthis matter on this score...

The fact that China has behaved towards us ungenerously, unfairly, if you like,the fact that its action, as we see it, has not been to their benefit or to ours or tothat of the world, should not alter our position. The Prime Minister of India whenspeaking on this matter, when he was specifically questioned in the legislature,said:

"Our policy in regard to the entry of China into the United Nationsremains as it was... it is not because we get angry with something thathappens in China that we change our policy. That would mean that wehave no firm policies, that we are deflected by temporary happenings inthe world."

...We have repeatedly come to this rostrum, we have repeatedly gone toconferences and proclaimed these (five) principles as our basis and our view thatit is the world’s interest that we and other countries should practice them. ThePrime Minister said that

"...if these principles are right, we hold by them and we should hold bythem, even though nobody in the wide world is willing to adopt them.Naturally, we have to adapt our policies to what happens in the world; wecannot live in isolation. But a principle should be acted upon even thoughsomebody else has not acted upon it."

That is to say, even violations by the very other party to the original formulationof the five principles, namely China, would not justify our going away from itwithout a great deal of consideration...

That is our position in regard to this matter, and therefore the Assembly shouldnot be led into some wrong view of things, thinking they are acting in sympathywith us...

I think it is necessary to declare on this rostrum that our misfortunes or whatevermay happen one way or another will not induce our Government to be drawn intocold war attitudes or into war blocs. In maintaining our rights, our dignity andour self-respect, in not allowing ourselves to drift into wrong and hostile attitudesand in trying to help in removing or solving each problem as it arises, we mayhelp a little. That is the line we propose to take. That is the utmost we can do inthe circumstances, and in the creation of this atmosphere we have to play our part.

Then there is the general atmosphere that is sought to be created as though there isa major war developing on our frontiers. While I have had no intention ofspeaking about the territories of Bhutan or Sikkim, references were made on thisrostrum about the invasion of these areas by hostile armies, by foreign elementsand so on. Now you may say: Why do you go into this? I do not feel called uponto speak in the defence of Chinese policy and have no intention of doing so. Butit is very much our concern that the world should know the extent of this matterboth ways, large or small.

The Maharajah Kumar of Sikkim, who is one of the most active politicalpersonalities in that territory, spoke publicly and to the press only a few daysbefore I left India. There were no foreign elements who had entered the territory.There were no concentrations on that side and the press stories were incorrect.

About Bhutan, a telegram received today says:

"Prime Minister of Bhutan, Jigme Dorji has said (in Calcutta) there hasbeen no intrusion into Bhutan territory by Chinese troops. Nor does heapprehend any. Dorji was speaking to newsmen."

I say this, not in order to minimise the nature of unfriendly actions that you andwe have spoken about today and yesterday. We shall defend our territory, if andwhenever it becomes necessary, to the best of our ability. But we shall also seekto solve the main problems in the usual way by negotiation. Negotiation does notmean that we shall negotiate on the basis of giving up what is our sovereignhomeland but we are willing to discuss minor adjustments that are required inwhat is called the MacMahon Line.

Friendship with China is something that we regard as necessary for them and forus. The Prime Minister said on 10 September:

"...We were right in working for their friendship and, may I repeat andsay, we shall continue to work for it. Any person who has the leastresponsibility for India’s future cannot allow himself to be frightened andangered and behave in fright and anger. No country should do that, moreespecially in a crisis... We have to think of the future of these two greatcountries. This idea of settling things by this kind of compulsion andforce or by threats and bullying is all wrong."

On 4 September, the Prime Minister said:

"I have always thought that it is important, even essential if you like, thatthese two countries of Asia, India and China, should have friendly and, asfar as possible, co-operative relations. ...it would be a tragedy not only forIndia, and possibly for China, but for Asia and the world if we developsome kind of permanent hostility... May I say that, in spite of all that hashappened and is happening today, that it (friendship of China and India) isstill our objective, and we shall continue to work for it."

These are the observations made to the Indian Parliament, and therefore they arewell considered political statements. We shall, therefore, on the one hand, nothave a policy of appeasement, nor, on the other hand, shall we be the victim ofwar psychoses of any kind. Nor do we want to exaggerate matters.

BUT ALL THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER of the situation sofar as Chinese representation is concerned. One may ask: What has happened?It is quite true there have been certain happenings which increasingly change theposition of the world. The main and ominous factor is the development of theworld in the matter of atomic weapons. While China may or may not be relevantin this context immediately, it is well known that several Powers have theprospect of the explosion of these weapons in different parts of the world. It isalso known that scientific advances have reached the position that most nationscan make and use these weapons. Therefore, if there is to be disarmament andsuspension or prohibition of nuclear weapons, that can be done only if the greatnations and the small nations of the world are parties to it...

Secondly, I say with all respect that it is not the gigantic size of China or itsproduction that makes us think it should be here. It is the fact of sovereignty; wehave as much respect for the smallest of our members, Iceland, with a populationsof some 200,000, as for China with a population of some 650 million, becausethey are countries and nations, large or small, and for the peoples concerned theyare their homelands and their nationhood...

We are not saying that because China is big and mighty, it is therefore dangerousto keep her out. What we are saying is this. If we are to have a general worldsettlement, if we are to settle the affairs of the world, we cannot have a great partof the world out of it. Here is a country which is now in diplomatic relations - notnecessarily in friendly relations - with some 34 countries of the world, carrying ontrade all around. It would be impossible to keep her out of the internationalcontext.

Now I ask: who should be the greater loser? China is certainly a loser. It wouldbe idle to pretend that it is not because any country that cannot be here is a loser

thereby. But the world is also the loser. It is possible for China to reap therewards of relationships without having to conform to obligations. It isimpossible to think of any scheme of disarmament, let alone atomic weapons,when a country reputed to have standing army of 5 million people and probablyanother 5 or 10 million in reserve, is outside the ambit of the discussions. I wouldsay that it does not seem sound and reasonable, to put it very mildly. Therefore itis the United Nations, the world as a whole, that stand to lose by the exclusion ofa country. I have said before that we cannot just wish away a people or a nation,great or small. Just because we shut our eyes the world does not become dark.We remain ignorant. Therefore, we have to recognise these facts as they stand...

THEN WE ARE TOLD THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SINS committed by theconcerned party which makes it wrong and impossible for us to consider thismatter. I have no doubt that sins have been committed. There are many things inChina of which we disapprove. There have been actions in regard to us which wehave protested and with regard to which we propose to remain very firm, and weshall act appropriately and to the best of our ability. But I would suggest in theinterests of facts that there are other countries, other States, who also havedeviated, including ours, from one or the other of the principles of the Charter inletter or spirit. There is not one of the eighty-two nations here who could stand upand say that they have not violated, consciously or unconsciously, any of theprovisions of the Charter or against whom any allegation of such evasion couldnot be laid by one or another member State if they so wished.

When the United Nations was founded, it was laid down, even before theconclusion of the war, that those who were on the other side fighting the Alliesshould also come into the United Nations at the proper time. So the foundersthought in terms not merely of having some nice people here, but of having theworld as it is. It was the basic idea of the United Nations that even those whowere engaged in the overthrow of liberty in the Second World War should, afterthe conclusion of peace, the termination of hostilities and the passage of time, jointhe comity of nations in order that the world may develop towards a morepeaceful and whole family.

Therefore, how can we justify keeping someone else out? It is said that, whileGovernments may change or die, States do not die. China is a primary member ofthe United Nations. Some of the signatories of the Charter are now members ofthe Peking Government, just as some others are members of the authority inFormosa. Secondly, if there are resolutions condemning aggression in regard toChina, there are resolutions also condemning other people, very firm ones, andrepeated not on some occasion when there was an excitement but deliberatelythought out, that it was part of the constitution that certain countries should not beadmitted. We rescinded that in effect and we disregarded those resolutions. Mycountry was in the forefront in trying to enlarge the membership of thisOrganisation. Even now there are some countries standing outside, like Outer

Mongolia or the countries that have been divided through no fault of their own,who are not here.

What is more, this is an Organisation, with its vast economic, social and othernational and international functions, from which a large tract of territory like theChinese continent cannot be excluded. Now under our decisions, not even thespecialised agencies can touch China.

Therefore, really, apart from all political theory and legal subtleties, we areexcluding the 650 million people of China from such healthy influence or fromsuch impacts that this Organisation can make...

...we should not create a mentality which would allow an impression to getaround that there is a large-scale war brewing in South-East Asia, that Bhutan isinvaded, Sikkim is invaded, Laos is invaded and somebody else is invaded. I say,with equal candour, that the Chinese Government has behaved in a way, so far aswe are concerned, that is both unwise and unfair and of no profit to themselves, tous or to the world.

So far as our territory is concerned, we are as much concerned about it as anybodyelse at least, and no one can say that we shall be oblivious to whatever dangersthere are. But from there to go on and say that in the foothills of the Himalayas alarge war is waging in inaccessible regions, is fantastic. I have someresponsibilities in this matter. It is not so much for the Assembly, but for all thosewho desire to know, that I say that we shall not permit unilateral action so far aswe are concerned. We may be a weaker country, we may be economicallybackward, we have our own ideological approach, but we certainly have sufficientsense of our own homeland to protect it whatever may be the sacrifices. I do notwish to express myself in stronger terms or in bitterness. We believe that, likeany case of difficult situations, this is a trying time for us. Instead of this beingthe occasion where we are inviting the United Nations to adopt a lawless attitude,as alleged, I submit that if we had, on this occasion when the first difficulty hitsus, departed from what we have been advocating from this rostrum year afteryear, we would have not deserved from the members of the United Nations eithertheir consideration or their respect nor could we feel that we had acted with asense of integrity or self-respect...


[In 1960 the question was brought before the General Assembly by the SovietUnion. The General Committee recommended a draft resolution as in earlieryears, and Nepal moved amendments to it.]

49 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifteenth Session. Plenary Meetings, pages365-71

...The Assembly has a very healthy respect for the Charter. If anyone stands upand says that the provisions of the Charter have been violated, we feel uneasy.That is why those who are accustomed to the ways of the Assembly are using themagic words of the Charter wrongly. For in this issue, irrespective of its merits,the provisions of the Charter are not involved. The Charter says that "peace-loving States" shall be admitted, States that are "able and willing to carry out"their obligations. But in this case the admission has already taken place. If, underthe definition of those who oppose its proper representation, China is not a peace-loving State, then the Formosans cannot sit here either - because they do notrepresent a peace-loving State. The admission of a peace-loving State has alreadytaken place; it is a question only of who occupies that State’s seats here. Somegate-crashers have come in, and we must remove them; it is really a function ofthe guards here.

Thus, there is no question of throwing the Charter at us and saying that becauseChina is not a peace-loving State the Assembly must not admit it to membership.Actually this situation is partly our fault. Some of us, including my owndelegation, have very often carelessly referred to this question as "the admissionof China." But the admission of China does not come into it because there couldbe no United Nations without China: China was a founding member of theUnited Nations and its representation on the Security Council is required for thatbody to function. Therefore the argument that there are certain defects in thisState cannot apply because the State is already represented here.

If this argument stood alone, it might not be so comic. But I would askrepresentatives to look at the statement on this subject made by my distinguished

friend, Mr. Wadsworth,50 who is always very reasonable, very calculated andvery deliberate in his expressions. Let us read what he said - perhaps it is aFreudian error.

"In the Taiwan Strait Communist China has been using armed forcesintermittently since 1950 as part of its violent campaign to seize Taiwanand the Pescadores, and thus to destroy the Republic of China."

If one reads those lines carefully, one finds that in Mr. Wadsworth's mind theRepublic of China is Taiwan and the Pescadores. In his mind the Republic ofChina is not that large continent stretching from the borders of Mongolia to theyellow sea; it is not the China of 650 million people; it is merely Taiwan and thePescadores - and it may well be only the Pescadores in a short time... Now thatcannot be said of one of the five great States which are permanent members of theSecurity Council.

50 James J. Wadsworth, representative of the United States of America

We have always said that membership in the United Nations does not involve anyobligation on the part of States to recognise other States... So a country whichtakes a reasonable, a just, a sensible view that does not make us look ridiculous inhistory, that country does not thereby subscribe to the economic, political,cultural, non-cultural or anti-cultural systems that obtain in China; it does notsubscribe to recognising them nationally; it does not thereby agree to trade withthem or anything of that kind. For example, it might even participate, as in theKorean war, in some action which may be objected to, or may be against China.All these things do not come into it. We are merely considering whether, inaccordance with the principles of universality, in accordance with common sense,this Assembly can be called an Assembly of the world when it excludes onequarter of the world’s population...

IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE DELEGATION OF INDIA to make its ownposition clear... We are told that because we had controversies and conflicts withChina, in regard to our frontier, therefore we have abandoned the principles of ourforeign policy, we have abandoned considerations that are applicable to ourmembership of the United Nations, and, what is more important, that we reversedthe views which were applicable at a time when this was not the case.

It is quite true that China, in disregard of neighbourly considerations, in disregardof a very formal decency, has violated the frontiers of India. My country will takeevery step that is required in order to rest such aggression and to guard thesecurity of our land. We make no reservations on this. We have told the worldthat this is an act which is against the relations that exist between our twocountries, against our desire for peaceful and friendly neighbourliness, and, whatis more, it is against the interests of peace. But in a role of that kind, howeverpainful it may be to us, however much it may be a violation of the principles ofexistence, it will not push us away from the fundamental things that govern us inregard to the United Nations...

In the course of his address to the Assembly this morning, the Prime Minister ofIndia made the following statement:

"I do not propose to deal with many other matters here but, in view of thecontroversy that is at present going on in the General Assembly, I shouldlike to refer briefly to the question of the proper representation of China inthe United Nations. For a number of years India has brought this issuebefore the United Nations because we have felt that it is not only improperfor this great and powerful country to remain unrepresented but that thishad an urgent bearing on all world problems, and especially those ofdisarmament.

"We hold that all countries must be represented in the United Nations. Wehave welcomed during this session many new countries. It appears most

extraordinary that any argument should be advanced to keep out Chinaand to give the seat meant for China to those who certainly do not andcannot represent China...

"It is well known that we in India have had and are having, a controversywith the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of Chinaabout our frontiers. In spite of that controversy, we continue to feel thatproper representation of the People’s Republic of China in the UnitedNations is essential; and the longer we delay it, the more harm we cause tothe United Nations and to the consideration of the major problems wehave before us. This is not a question of liking or disliking, but of doingthe right and proper thing."

That which my Prime Minister stated this morning applies to Mongolia. Thepeople of this country, but dint of hard work, have converted inhospitable landsinto fertile regions. The people of this great country cannot be kept out becausepeople do not know them or because people think they do not like them. Thisapproach to the United Nations is something to which my country cannotsubscribe.

SOME THIRTY-FIVE OR FORTY COUNTRY NOW RECOGNISE thePeople’s Republic of China. Not all of them are friendly to it. There are Stateslike us who do not deviate from friendship with it in spite of provocations. On theother hand, there are States, such as the United Kingdom, which recognise andtrade with it but will not vote for its representation here. There are still otherswhich have recently recognised it.

The People’s Republic of China played a very important role in the Asian-AfricanConference at Bandung in 1955, and assisted in the formulation of policies whichhave helped Asian and African countries achieve solidarity under the umbrella ofthe United Nations Charter. These are the various considerations we ought tohave in mind when we look into this matter...

Mr. Wadsworth said...:

"The Peiping regime was imposed by military force, and in ten years..."

I have a vague recollection of a thing called the "American War ofIndependence." Apart from humble countries like our own, there are not manyregimes that have not been imposed by force. I ask my friends from thecontinent of South America to recollect their own history. How many of theirregimes were not imposed by force, and would they feel like men and women ifprevious regimes had not been overthrown and new ones imposed by force? Thefact of a State coming into existence as a result of a popular revolution has beenknown. For example, there are many in this Assembly who are the creatures of

para-revolutions - revolutions from the top. There are members of the UnitedNations which have forms of government ranging from communist to other formsof authoritarian dictatorship; there are parliamentary democracies; there arepresidential democracies; there are guided democracies, and misguideddemocracies. Every one is here. So we do not look at these internal questions...

We speak on this matter, at this time of night and at this late stage of the debate,even more forcibly because of the misconduct of China in relation to India; notthat we want to appear to take upon ourselves a kind of position of imposedvirtue, but we remember that our obligations to the United Nations are not to beconditioned by pains which we have suffered ourselves; that is to say, our nationaldifficulties or international difficulties with relation to one State should not makeus undertake any approach to war or peace, which would become impossible...

THE SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

[Soon after the Belgian Congo (now Zaire) attained independence in July 1960, itwas faced with a serious crisis. On 12 July, Belgium sent its troops to the Congoalleging a breakdown of law and order. The provincial authorities of Katanga,headed by Moise Tshombe, backed by Belgian soldiers, declared secession.

At the request of the Congolese Government, the United Nations sent militaryforces to the Congo to provide necessary assistance until the national securityforces were able to meet their tasks, and undertook an economic assistanceprogramme.

India was actively involved in the United Nations Operation in the Congo(ONUC). It contributed the largest contingent to the United Nations Force,numbering 4,701 infantry personnel and 1,071 supporting forces. RajeshwarDayal, an Indian national, was appointed Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the Congo in September 1960. India was a member of the AdvisoryCommittee on the Congo and the United Nations Conciliation Commission whichvisited the Congo in January-February 1961.

The United Nations operation encountered great difficulties because of internalconflicts and anarchy in the Congo, the involvement of foreign military personneland mercenaries, and sharp differences among the major Powers. It soonsucceeded in securing the withdrawal of Belgian troops from the capital,Leopoldville (now Kinshasa), and other areas, but Belgian nationals remained inthe Katanga gendarmerie and police. The Government of the Congo, led byPatrice Lumumba, criticised the United Nations Secretary-General for notassisting it in relation to Katanga. It sought and received some military assistancefrom the Soviet Union. The Congo became a serious issue in the "cold war"contention between the United States and the Soviet Union.

A constitutional crisis developed in September 1960, when the President, JosephKasavubu, dismissed the Prime Minister, Mr. Lumumba, and the latter announcedthe dismissal of the President with the support of the Parliament. On 15September, the Chief of Staff of the Army, Colonel Mobutu, announced the takeover of power by the army. Subsequently, President Kasavubu issued decreesdissolving the Parliament, and designating a "College of Commissioners,"installed by the military, as the government.

Pandit Nehru, in a speech to the General Assembly in October, suggested that theUnited Nations should help the Parliament to meet and function so that theCongo’s problems might be dealt with by its own people. But no effective actionwas taken towards that end.

In November, after heated discussion in the General Assembly, the United States

and other Powers secured - by 53 votes to 24, with 19 abstentions - the seating inthe General Assembly of a delegation designated by President Kasavubu.Strengthened by this decision, President Kasavubu and Colonel Mobutu, with thehelp of Belgian advisers, ignored appeals for national reconciliation andlawlessness spread in the country.

The crisis grew more serious early in December 1960 when Mr. Lumumba andother members of Parliament were detained by the Congolese troops andmanhandled. Six governments then withdrew their troops from the United NationsForce. The provincial authorities of the Orientale province at Stanleyvillethreatened reprisals against Belgian residents unless Mr. Lumumba was released,and proceeded to arrest some Belgian nationals.

The situation was considered by the Security Council from 7 to 13 December, butno resolution could be adopted because of serious differences of opinion amongmembers and the "cold war" attitudes.

India had serious reservations on the direction of the United Nations operation inthe Congo, but did not go along with other non-aligned countries which withdrewfrom the United Nations Force. During the discussion in the Security Council,India pointed out that the withdrawal of the United Nations Force would be acalamity. Its proper functioning required new approaches, and progress might beachieved if governments enjoying influence with the Congolese authorities wereto use their good offices to urge an end to lawlessness, the neutralisation of thearmed forces, the release of prisoners and the convening of Parliament.

The matter was discussed in the General Assembly later in December at therequest of India and Yugoslavia. The Assembly rejected a non-aligned draftresolution co-sponsored by India and an Anglo-American draft, opposed by India,was not adopted for lack of a two-thirds majority. After the voting, Mr. Menonwarned that a reversal of the process of deterioration in the Congo could not takeplace if the United Nations and the major Powers continued to follow a partisanpolicy. "Our position is that the failure of the United Nations in the Congo andthe necessity of the mission having to be withdrawn would not be a failure of theUnited Nations only, but a disaster to the Congolese people who will be steepedin the blood of civil war."

The situation deteriorated rapidly. On January 18, 1961, Patrice Lumumba,together with Maurice Mpolo and Joseph Okito, was transferred in detention fromThysville to Elisabethville in Katanga and it became known on 13 February thatthey had been killed. A few days later six political leaders imprisoned inLeopoldville were deported to Bakwanga, South Kasai, and executed.Mercenaries from Belgium, South Africa and Rhodesia began to arrive inKatanga.

This turn of events had grave repercussions in the United Nations. Several

countries condemned the Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold. The SovietUnion announced that it would not recognise him nor maintain any relations withhim, and would give all support to a pro-Lumumba government established inStanleyville, headed by Antoine Gizenga, former Deputy Prime Minister of theCongo.

However, recognition of the grave dangers in the Congo, the advent of a newadministration in the United States, headed by President John F. Kennedy, andgrowing world public opinion had a positive effect. On February 21, 1961, theSecurity Council was able to adopt a resolution providing for stronger action bythe United Nations to avert civil war, secure the withdrawal of Belgian and othermilitary forces and promote a peaceful settlement.

As the United Nations Force became depleted by the withdrawal of severalcountries, the Secretary-General made an urgent appeal for additional troops.India made the largest contribution by sending a brigade to the Congo early inApril.

The situation was again discussed in the resumed session of the General Assemblyin March-April 1961. India co-sponsored two draft resolutions (A/L.339 and A/L.347) - which were adopted on 15 April as resolutions 1599 (XV) and 1601 (XVI).The Assembly also adopted another resolution, 1600 (XV), sponsored by 17Asian-African countries.

Under these resolutions, the Assembly again called for the withdrawal of allBelgian and other foreign military and paramilitary personnel and politicaladvisers not under the United Nations Command; urged the release of allpolitical leaders under detention; urged the convening of Parliament with safeconduct and security extended by the United Nations; and established aCommission of four jurists to investigate the assassination of Patrice Lumumbaand his colleagues.

Forceful action by the United Nations, in accordance with the Security Counciland General Assembly resolutions, including military action by the UnitedNations Force in the Katanga, in which the Indian brigade was assigned theprimary role, helped avert a disaster in the Congo and a grave threat to theUnited Nations.

Three speeches made by Mr. Menon in the General Assembly in December1960 and April 1961 are reproduced here.]

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly December 16, 196051

51 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifteenth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages

[During the discussion in the General Assembly of the crisis in the Congo, India,together with seven other non-aligned countries, presented a draft resolution(A/L.331 and Rev.1). By this text, the Assembly, conscious of the urgentresponsibility of the United Nations in view of the grave and ominousdevelopments and continuing deterioration in the Congo, the absence of effectivecentral authority and the hostile attitude and resistance of armed detachments tothe United Nations operation, would consider that the United Nations musthenceforth implement its mandate fully to prevent breach of peace and security, torestore and maintain law and order and the inviolability of persons and to takeurgent measures to assist the Congolese people in meeting their pressingeconomic needs. It would urge the immediate release of all political prisonersunder detention - more particularly the members of the Central Government andParliament - the convening of Parliament and measures to prevent armed unitsand personnel in the Congo from interference in the political life of the countryand from obtaining support from abroad. It would draw the attention of theBelgian Government to its grave responsibilities in disregarding the resolutionsof the United Nations and demand that all Belgian military and quasi-militarypersonnel, advisers and technicians be immediately withdrawn.

The United Kingdom and the United States submitted another draft resolution(A/L.332) to call upon all States to refrain from direct or indirect assistance formilitary purposes in the Congo except upon the request of the United NationsSecretary-General; to request the Secretary-General to assist the President of theCongo in establishing conditions in which Parliament could meet in security andfreedom from outside interference, and to continue his efforts to assist the Congoin ensuring respect for civil and human rights for all persons within the country.

On 20 December, the Assembly rejected the draft resolution c-sponsored by India.The Anglo-American draft was also rejected for lack of a two-thirds majority.]

We are discussing probably one of the most critical situations that has emerged inour time, which may affect the question of order or anarchy on the continent ofAfrica, the prestige of the United Nations, and what the Secretary-General himselfhas described as the problem of peace and security. This afternoon we are heremore especially because the Security Council has failed the United Nations. Fordays and in the late hours of the night, the Council debated these problems and theeleven wise men were not able to produce the results that were required.

Therefore, whatever may be the niceties, the various nuances involved and thereasons that may go into it, the world looks upon the fact that the Security Councilwhich is charged with the protection of peace and security in the world and to actwith great urgency - even though it was convened thanks to the initiative of the

1309-91

President, and I mince no words in the matter, at this critical situation - did notcome to a conclusion. It does not matter very much whether it was due to theintransigence of one or the lack of courage of the other, or whether it was for thisor that reason. The fact does stand out that while war threatens the world andwhile civil war threatens to tear up Africa, and while other events in south-eastAsia, on account of the intervention of the great Powers of the world, threaten toshake the peace of the world, the Security Council has been stultified. That iswhy we are here today.

...We have before us a document from the Special Representative of theSecretary-General which says that the armed forces of the so-called Governmentof the Congo - that is what we should call it hereafter because it has no legitimateauthority - led by a person who is a product of a "coup d'etat" and not of a goodtype either, had challenged the authority of the United Nations and, in the wordsof Mr. Dayal, committed aggression against the United Nations... I think that it isthe worst challenge, the worst humiliation, that the United Nations ever suffered,that there should be a person in charge of armed forces with no authority from hispeople or even of the head of his Government presumably, and no authority fromparliament, who dares to challenge the authority of the United Nations, sanctifiedby resolutions of the Security Council and this Assembly, which is not in theCongo for imperial occupation and, as one representative unfortunately once triedto say, for joint imperialism. It is not there for the purpose of aggrandisement, butrather called there by a legal government. The Secretary-General pointed to theSecurity-Council decision, whatever the resolution may appear to be literally, andsaid that the maintenance of law and order was implied in that resolution...

Therefore, there is this second fact, that is to say, there is the beginning of warwaged upon the United Nations. Are we to sit back here idly, we the peoples ornations of the world, as it is stated in the Charter, and not accept this challenge?My Government does not take the view that, as regards the Secretary-General orwhoever is responsible, the mandate given by the Security Council is not enoughto cover this event. We agree that it is not necessary to exercise a mandate to thefull in the beginning, but we believe that the resolutions adopted by the SecurityCouncil, read with the various documents that have come in to us, and the variousstatements made by the Secretary-General before us, are sufficient to cover theentire issues that are before us, because there is a threat to peace and security.Therefore, what is to be sought is not a new mandate but working out of themandate, facing the realities of the situation...

We are here for three reasons. First, we are concerned with the fact that theprestige and position of the United Nations and its right have been challenged.Secondly, we are as nationals concerned with the humiliations inflicted upon ourpeople. We did not go to the Congo to be humiliated; we are prepared to takehardships; we are prepared to bear the burdens which are necessary, and we donot whine about them. But we say that these national humiliations areinternational humiliations. What one country suffers in the pursuance of a

mandate, in the pursuance of a request by the United Nations, is the suffering ofevery other country...

The feeling in my country, in Parliament, in public opinion and in the press is sostrong about this that I have to convey it to you. I can do no better than quote afew words which my own Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru, uttered a few days agowhen the Security Council was sitting, and he, with the optimism thatcharacterises him, hoped that some solution would come out of the SecurityCouncil. He said:

"It is a very dangerous situation, not only dangerous for the Congo but forthe whole of Africa; not only for the whole of Africa but for the future ofthe United Nations itself, because if the United Nations cannot deal withthis situation and fails, then naturally its capacity to deal with any othersituation or similar situation will go."

Another fact should also be remembered, that recent developments there had beena matter not only of deep concern and anxiety but, in a measure, even anger tomany peoples and many countries of Asia and Africa. If I may, I will stop there.I now turn to my friends, to my colleagues and brothers in Africa and the Asiancountries, and I should like to remind them that this is a great humiliation; it is thereverse of Bandung.

A number of countries have had their representatives thrown out. We do not standfor that from any country when we have an ambassador accredited there. Anumber of countries have withdrawn their contingents from the United NationsForce and no one quite knows what other developments of this kind may takeplace hereafter. There is danger not only of civil war, which is practically takingplace in a small way, but of civil war spreading, of foreign intervention on abigger scale because as things are in the world, if one major Power intervenes, asindeed it has done, its opposite number or some others would want to intervenealso and claim to come in to create some kind of balancing intervention. I thinkthat that is a very mild statement, though it expresses a situation that calls for astrong characterisation.

The United Nations went into the Congo in order to give technical assistance, inorder to assist in the maintenance of law and order but, more than all of this, toexpel the intruder; that is to say, the Belgian Government, which, having ruledthis country over a period of eighty years as an imperial ruler, having left ithelpless without educated or capable administering strata in its society, with nodevelopment that could cope with this situation, gave it independence - thegauntlet with the gift in it.

We do not regret the independence of the Congo but we regret this act of politicaldesertion. There can be no greater condemnation of an empire, not even itsatrocities, than that it leaves a country paralysed, emasculated and incapable of

taking care of itself. Belgium today stands in the dock of the world, not only herebut everywhere and it should well be called to account by the United Nations forthis purpose. We therefore went into the Congo also for this purpose ofexpulsion, for the withdrawal of Belgian nationals. Although it is somewhat out oforder I propose to take this matter first.

The Security Council, in its resolution of July 22 1960, called upon theGovernment of Belgium "to implement speedily the Security Council resolutionof 14 July 1960 on the withdrawal of their troops" and authorised the Secretary-General "to take all necessary action to this effect"... It does not say all legalaction or legitimate action or cautious action; it says "necessary action," the actionlimited to the achievement of the result. Therefore the mandate is sufficientlywide.

This was a repetition of the resolution passed on 14 July. The resolution ofAugust 9, 1960 adopted by the Security Council called upon the Government ofBelgium "to withdraw immediately its troops from the Province of Katanga underspeedy modalities determined by the Secretary-General and to assist in everypossible way the implementation of the Council’s resolutions."

Credit is due to the Secretary-General because he permitted, and, I believe, evenled the United Nations troops into Katanga. At least so far as I know; I do notknow anything more about it, at least it was a good gesture.

On August 20, 1960, the permanent representative of Belgium replied to theSecretary-General, that is, one month and six days after the first resolution askingthe Belgian Government to withdraw. I have said from this rostrum in anotherconnection three or four years ago that it always appears aggressive troops orinvading armies or imperial forces take less time to go in than to come out! Whyit should take one month and six days for Belgians to pack up and go home I donot know.

The Belgian Government replied as follows:

"The Belgian Government has instructed me to inform you that the Kitonaand Kamina bases will be evacuated except for experts."

Further on the reply stated:

"The number of experts required for essential services is 1,000 at themaximum for Kamina and 500 for Kitona."

On 30 August the permanent representative of Belgium said that "the withdrawalof Belgium troops in the Congo has been completed" - I want you to mark thesewords - "with the sole exception of some members of the First Paratroop Battalionwho are in transit... Instructions have been issued to the effect that, should it be

necessary and in order to avoid any delay, they should be evacuated by air. Thusthe withdrawal of Belgian troops from the Congo has in effect been completed."This is a categorical assurance given by a founding Member of the United Nationsand, what is more, a country that twice in this century has been ravaged byforeign invasion and to whose aid the rest of the world had gone.

We have that assurance from the Belgian Government. But what happened? Wedo not have to take any partisan sources for the examination of this reply. Thisreply from the Belgian representative was dated 30 August. On the same day, theSecretary-General wrote to the permanent representative of Belgium as follows:

"The Secretary-General has, however, just received a report from hisrepresentatives who arrived at Kamina today, 30 August... At that timeBelgian combat troops consisting of one 400-man battalion ofparatroopers, one 120-man company of airfield guards and one school ofaviation comprising 50 instructors and students had not yet beenevacuated...

"The Secretary-General expresses his surprise at finding that there is amarked difference between the information received from Brussels and thefacts observed on the scene... As the evacuation has, nevertheless, not yetbeen completed the Secretary-General deems it necessary to submit aformal protest to the Belgian Government requesting that the evacuationof Belgian troops which are still in the Congo should be effectedimmediately."

Those of us who know Mr. Hammarskjold know that he does not use offensivelanguage but indeed very courteous language; but we would all agree that this isstrong enough as language, as a request, as a protest, but it was "necessary"action, as events have shown.

In its reply of 4 September the Belgian Government said that the relief of Belgianunits in Katanga:

"provided inter alia for an overlapping period in which to transferauthority and hand over the provisions, bedding and other equipment...

"(2) The relief by United Nations troops was not carried out in accordancewith the time-table laid down."

In other words, they said, "we could not go out because you did not come in." Thereply continues:

"General Geysen nevertheless confirmed that, despite this major delay onthe part of the United Nations, the Belgian troops would be withdrawn atmidnight on 30 August."

Let us recall that just before they had said that they had already withdrawn. Nowthey said that they would be withdrawn by midnight. The Belgian replycontinues: "An essential number of men were left on the spot..." Then we couldhave rested with some feelings that things were being done. But then we turnover and we find that on 4 September, that is, four days afterwards, the Secretary-General has again to write, to the Foreign Minister of Belgium this time. So it isnot as though there were any delay in communication.

The Secretary-General said:

"My representatives, who went to the base today in order to see what thesituation was, have sent me a report to the effect that the commander ofthe base has so far received no instructions except an indication that hemust furnish logistic support for the United Nations effort in the Congo."

It has nothing to do with removal, it is solely "logistic support for the UnitedNations efforts in the Congo." The Secretary-General continued his reply:

"Furthermore, according to the report, there are still 650 Belgians at thebase, including those at Banana. The commander himself has said that allthese men are combatants, that there are no technicians among them, andthat he himself is a para-troop. On a flight over the Banana naval base twogunboats were observed."

So it does not look as though they were there for any peaceful purpose. On thesame day the Secretary-General pursued this with greater persistence and he said:

"According to information received by the Secretary-General, officers ofBelgian nationality are at the present time attached to Katanga forces andother groups in armed conflict with the central Government of theRepublic of the Congo."

"...In view of the circumstances, however, the situation can be interpretedin the sense that the Belgian Government has at least permitted personsconnected with its military services under a `technical assistance'programme to give help to forces fighting the Government of the Congo."

In other words, here is a statement by the Secretary-General to the Belgianauthorities where he definitely charges them with assistance in insurrection. Ofcourse, there is no question at that time that the Government of the Congo hadeven suffered any difficulties or internal problems. Here was Belgium intriguingand using its military assistance to perform an operation which would upset thelegitimate government and the Secretary-General draws their attention to that. Ifthat is so, the situation is essentially different from that of private individuals whovolunteer their services, because the Belgians presumably had said beforehand - I

am interpolating this - that "we cannot do anything about them, they are privateindividuals." But the Secretary-General reminds them:

"In view of customary military regulations, it may be assumed that thistransfer could not have occurred without the assent in one form or anotherof the Belgian military authorities; at all events, it would be hard tobelieve that officers of the Belgian Army have severed their connectionwith that Army in order to enrol in provincial forces fighting in the Congowithout having obtained the approval of their military superiors andwithout having thereby made certain that they could rejoin the BelgianArmy, if necessary with a loss in rank of seniority."

In other words, Mr. Hammarskjold, if I am right, rejects this contention ofBelgium and says that they are taking part in aiding and abetting insurrection,they are present there, and he does not accept their word.

Three days later, on 9 September, the Belgians again replied:

"Under the circumstances, a small number of Belgian experts weresupplied to the ‘corps de gendarmerie’ of Katanga as technical assistance.

"It is hard to see in this technical assistance a measure contrary tooperative paragraph 2 of the Security Council’s resolution of July 22,1960."

That is to say, they admit a small amount of this presence, but not the volumementioned by the Secretary-General and then seek to justify it.

The Secretary-General again writes on 8 September to the permanentrepresentative of Belgium:

"Confirmed reports have been received to the effect that a cargo ofweapons, marked Belgian weapons, or something similar, the weight ofwhich is estimated at 9 tons, was unloaded at Elisabethville airportyesterday from a DC civil aircraft of the Sabena airlines.

"The Secretary-General wishes to draw this report to the immediateattention of the Belgian Government in order to ascertain whether it is truethat the Belgian Government had thus sent or authorised the sending ofweapons from Belgium to the provincial authorities in Elisabethville.Should this be the case the Secretary-General considers it necessary tomake a formal protest against the delivery which is contrary to the letterand spirit of the Security Council resolution of 22 July."

Again, in the Second Progress Report to the United Nations, the SpecialRepresentative of the Secretary-General says:

"In the last few weeks there has been increasing evidence of the return ofBelgian nationals into many phases of public life in the Congo... there hasbeen a substantial incursion of those elements which appear to seek adominating influence in the councils of administration and to exclude orobstruct the application of United Nations technical assistance andinfluence."

So that if I may interpolate here, the present action of Mobutu in offering armedresistance to the United Nations, which has been reported by the SpecialRepresentative, was preceded by the Belgians themselves in offering aggressionin the technical field.

"Some Belgian nationals are believed to have been actively armingseparatist Congolese forces and, in some cases, Belgian officers havedirectly led such forces, which in certain areas, have been responsible forbrutal and oppressive acts of violence."

These are not my statements, these are the statements of the Secretary-General.

"Advisers of Belgian nationality have been returning to governmentalministries both in Leopoldville and the provinces, partially through whatseems to be an organised recruiting campaign in Belgium. The motivesand activities of a signification portion of these returning officials appearto be clearly at variance with the principles of the General Assemblyresolution and with ONUC's52 objectives."

The answer to this rather strong protest by the Secretary-General, with facts andfigures, chapter and verse quoted, is, if I may say so, a rather offensive one fromthe Belgian Government. The Secretary-General receives a communication fromthe permanent mission of Belgium to the United Nations stating:

"The Second Progress Report of the Secretary-General’s SpecialRepresentative in the Congo has greatly displeased the BelgianGovernment and Belgian public opinion..." - that is something, is it not? -"which have been shocked by tendentious judgements based upon a seriesof purely subjective allegations and interpretations, ambiguousinnuendoes, unfounded insinuations and arbitrary interpretations of thedecisions and resolutions of the United Nations."

I will not read very much more... it is an insult to the United Nations...

IT IS THE POSITION OF MY GOVERNMENT that no extension of the mandateas such is necessary... I think we should therefore cite the maxim that when

52 United Nations Operation in the Congo

conditions change, rebus sic stantibus, then the pertinent things have also tochange. Mr. Hammarskjold has made a reply to this, which I shall take up in amoment. Now, what are these changed conditions?

First of all, when the United Nations went into the Congo there was a legalGovernment. We went there at the invitation of the legal government. We are stillthere. There is however, no longer any legal government, and today there is nogovernment at all. That is one changed condition.

The second changed condition is that there has been a "coup d’etat" by a personwho at best is a Chief of Army Staff under the old Government, and therefore,"coup d’etat" conducted by a commissioned officer in the regular post of an armyamounts to an act of treason, that is to say, that a treasonable individual is incharge of the operative forces that are in the Congo.

The third circumstance that has changed, I state with great regret, is that nationalsof various countries - and my country has only a small share - who have gonethere, have indignities, cruelties and terrorism heaped upon them - to which I shallrefer latter. Diplomatic officials are insulted, their luggage and their paperstampered with, things have taken place in the Congo, under the higher authorities- it is not as though they were helpless people who aided, abetted and promptedthis; it is of a technique of opposition to the United Nations. And I think it is timewe recognised that a continual war is being waged against the United Nations bymethods that are of an extremely questionable character. For whatever he isworth, Colonel Mobutu, in so far as the United Nations is concerned, is guilty of agreat crime.

So then I come to probably the worst of the changed conditions. The Assembly inits wisdom, or otherwise... changed its original wise position, which was to leavethe Congo benches vacant until these matters are resolved, so that it will bepossible for the Congolese themselves to decide their affairs and to have adelegation sent over that would speak in their name. Unfortunately, on account ofthe war of words that goes on here, on account of these ideas of prestige and whatnot, we have a situation where a considered decision of the General Assemblywas, in effect, upset by a procedural device that does not require a two thirdsmajority. I think it will forever stand as a regrettable fact in the history of theUnited Nations that an extremely wise position which would probably have actedas a break on the bad drift of events in the Congo, was upset by a proceduraldevice in which a great many people participated.

So a delegation nominated by the Head of the State, Mr. Kasavubu, who has noright to nominate them, is seated today in the Assembly. We have nothing againstthis individual, an estimable gentleman with whom we have, personally, friendlyrelations. But we are dealing with principles at the moment. These people do notrepresent authority; they cannot deliver the goods; it is very doubtful if they caneven be adequately briefed by their own principals, and they certainly cannot

implement their promises to the United Nations. But we have a right to expect,whether we made a right decision or wrong decision - the Assembly having, by amajority, agreed to regard a certain group as the representatives of theGovernment - we have a right to expect from it the discharge of theresponsibilities of a member State. Therefore, from that point of view, out of evilsome good may come.

These are the changed conditions that have taken place, and therefore we wouldsuggest that with the repeated affirmation of confidence in the Secretary-General,the repeated expressions of opinion by the Assembly that more and more vigorousaction must be taken - all this, we would suggest, has to be implemented.

THERE IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE CHANGES that strikes the man in therural villages of India. He sees that when, in Stanleyville, large numbers ofEuropeans are going to be held as hostages the Secretary-General withcommendable promptitude and with great courage turns in the United Nationsforces to prevent atrocities taking place because atrocities in one place are likeatrocities anywhere else. For ourselves, whatever may be the law in the case webelieve that similar action should be taken everywhere. We think the time ispassed when we can indulge in mere legal quibbles on these matters.

I have instructions from my Government to communicate to you the followingfacts, not for purpose of special pleading, but because of the special nationalconcern of my country in this matter of atrocities.

On 22 November some ANC ["Armee nationale congolaise"] soldiers - the ANCis supposed to be the National Army of the Congo - stopped a United Nationsfield officer, an Indian, while he was starting his car. Another field officer, and acaptain, both Indians, came to his assistance but were overpowered by the ANCsoldiers. It should not be thought that the Indian personnel could not haveretaliated; they are not there, however, for that purpose. These two officers werethreatened with cocked rifles, struck on the face with rifle-butts and marched offat bayonet-point. We have had no apology, either from the CongoleseGovernment or from the permanent representative, or whoever sits here, and wehave had no explanations. One field officer is suffering from a punctured ear-drum as a result of the blows received. The first field officer was taken away bythe ANC, savagely beaten, thrown face down, and received repeated kicks andrifle-butt blows from his assailants.

This is the treatment offered to officers of the Indian Army wearing thePresident’s Commission. We would not sit down under this in the face of anenemy; but we have done in the Congo. These officials have not retaliatedbecause, first of all, while they are combatants, they are on non-combat duty inthe Congo. And we are still waiting for some explanation from Mr.Hammarskjold on this question.

On 28 November, troops of Colonel Mobutu seized an ambulance van belongingto the Indian Medical Unit - a very glorious thing for soldiers to do. Even in theworst of wars when the enemy was of the character of Hitlerite Germany, theselaws, which are sanctified by practice and by the International Red Cross and theGeneva Conventions, have often been observed, but here is a gallant soldier tryingto seize the ambulance of a medical unit. Earlier the Congolese soldiers disarmedtwo Indian military policemen escorting a Nigerian general to the airport. TheCongolese officer forcibly took away all the goods of the house of theCommander of the Indian contingent and has now occupied the house. If this isnot plain highway robbery, I would like to know what it is.

A Bazooka gun was mounted in General Rikhye's53 garden and two armoured carsstood nearby. The families of Mr. Dayal and Brigadier Rikhye had to spend thenight often at the United Nations headquarters, in view of Colonel Mobutu'stroops' threat to attack their homes. These are Mr. Hammarskjold'srepresentatives. One is his adviser, the other his Special Representative. I do notknow what would happen if the Secretary-General himself went there. On 22November, Colonel Roy was stopped on his way to the airport by ANC troopsand deprived of his car. There must be a shortage of vehicles in this place.Colonel Harmander Singh, the officer commanding the Indian contingent, andCaptain Jagjit Singh, his adjutant, were stopped on their way to the office anddeprived of their cars. On 3 December, Mr. Lazarus, a correspondent of the PressTrust of India, was twice set upon by Congolese civilians and received blows.Local gendarmerie went twice to his hotel during his absence and not forprotective purposes. But I must here say with regard to this correspondent that theCongolese authorities thought better of it afterwards and have withdrawn allobjections against him.

These are some of the atrocities that have been committed. But my Governmenthas no desire to enlarge and circulate them as atrocity stories. However, if we whoare not taking any combat part in this - out of the 780 or nearly 800 people whoare there, 400 are in the field hospital; a 400-bed field hospital has gone therefrom India - if our people, I repeat, who are there on practically what many call amission of mercy, are to be treated in this way, what is the fate of the others whoare combatants and who are there in order to check lawlessness?

THIS IS THE POSITION SO FAR AS THE CHANGED SITUATION on theother side is concerned. The second aspect to which I referred is that there is noeffective central authority. The authority in the Congo, according to theconstitution as we see it, is the Head of State, Mr. Kasavubu, whom thisAssembly, in spite of all that has been happening, treated with the highest respect.He addressed us as the embodiment of the sovereignty of the Congolese people.But sovereignty as an embodiment is not adequate in order that sovereignty may

53 Brigadier Indrajit Rikhye, military adviser to the Secretary-General

function through the right and proper channels.

The Government of India, while it recognises the authority of Mr. Kasavubu asthe Head of State and expects that he will respect the constitution, does not accepthis definition of his functions. Therefore the dismissal of his Prime Minister isunconstitutional. It is not only unconstitutional in law, but it has no validity so faras we are concerned. His closing of Parliament is also outside his authority.Under the constitution of the Congo, which we have carefully perused, thePresident has no authority to shut down Parliament for more than one month. Hecould not get rid of his Prime Minister unless there was the sanction ofParliament; and in this case, Parliament gave its two-thirds vote in favour of thePrime Minister and against the decision of the President, and the President, in anyopinion, quite unfactually points out that there was not a two-thirds majority - andI take the responsibility for these words.

Parliament has been sent away. It is impossible for them to meet; numbers ofthem are in prison. There were cruelties inflicted by one faction against anotherand members of Parliament who have Parliamentary immunity, as we have in ourown country, are under illegal detention.

The Army, which is the semblance of authority- I would like to ask the Secretary-General to enlighten us on this. As to this Army, if the United Nations forces arethere, what is the function of the Congolese Army? The Congolese Army cankeep to traffic regulation and aid in keeping order, if they will do it. As theSecretary-General has pointed out, they are partly for the maintenance of law andorder. If that is so, they should join the forces maintaining law and order, sincethere cannot be a situation in the country where there are two military forces, eachacting in its own way. That is the best way to lead to anarchy, as indeed it hasdone.

So there is violence, anarchy, illegal rule, suspension of Parliament, imprisonmentof political people, ill-treatment of foreign nationals with indignities heaped uponthem; there is total lack of observance of all diplomatic courtesies - there has beenno response whatsoever, either from the permanent mission attached to the UnitedNations or from the Congolese Government, in regard to all these matters. Andthen, again, there is the opposition offered by Belgium on the one hand, and nowby Mobutu's troops on the other, to the forces of the United Nations. They havepresently challenged the United Nations and are pressing the situation. This is nota challenge merely to our dignity, but really a challenge to the authority andprestige of the United Nations which, if it is lost in Africa, would be one of thegreat calamities of our time, and would be reflected in the rest of the world.

Then came the next thing: the Government of the Congo is now apparently in thehands of what is called a College of Commissioners. These Commissioners are,apparently, students or ex-students who are selected, I suppose, because they areyoung people who never had authority before; they would like to exercise that

authority. It is not for us to decide whether the Congolese should have studentsrunning their Government; that is up to them. But it is our business to see that itis under constitutional authority, thus, in accordance with law and civilisedpractice.

These young people are usually guided by their teachers who are Belgians, so infact it is the Belgians who are the College of Commissioners, and Mr. Dayal alsoreports that in many cases they give contradictory orders and opinions and createa great deal of trouble. I regret that the young generation in the Congo, on whomrests the future of that country, has been dragged into party politics and made todo the bidding of party politicians who are self-seeking.

In a recent case, with regard to the orders to occupy the base at Kitona, theseorders were given by the district commissioners. I would like to ask, Mr.Secretary-General, how, even if these commissioners were legally appointed, anational action of this kind is taken by local officials? The occupation of theKitona base, as far as I can see, was the subject of an agreement or understandingbetween the United Nations and the then Congolese authorities, and even if thisCollege of Commissioners were legal and competent officials, even then howdoes it happen that a municipal authority can deal with an international body likethe United Nations, as is now happening? That is more evidence of the anarchythat is now going on.

We come now to the more serious situation in this matter apart from the Belgianoccupation to which I have partly referred and that is the position of Mobutuhimself. The Secretary-General has been good enough to inform the SecurityCouncil that Colonel Mobutu would not be able to function in the way he hasbeen doing unless he has outside assistance. This is a fact that the Secretary-General has put before the Security Council and it is a matter of greatsignificance.

On November 2, 1960, in the report of the Special Representative, it is stated:"The coup of the ANC Chief of Staff..." - and is it right for us to deal with onewho has usurped power in this manner? - "had introduced a new factor adding tothe complexity of the situation... the eruption of the army into the political sceneconstituted a new menace to peace and security..." I want to lay stress on thesewords, "to peace and security", because the arguments that I am going to submitto you in the resolution are largely based upon that, "a new menace to peace andsecurity." It is the United Nations position, that there is a menace to peace andsecurity in the Congo; this is by Belgian aggression, and Mobutu is a menace topeace and security.

In Leopoldville, the principal centre of political activity in the Congo, a state ofterror has been introduced threatening a paralysis of life in the community. Theyoung men, the College of Commissioners, were invariably accompanied bynumerous Belgian advisers, as a rule drawn from among their own teachers. The

inevitable consequence was that the commissioners were more inclined to listento their own mentors than to listen to the United Nations consultants, who inmany ministries found a wall of opposition building up against them. Indeed,instead of co-operating with the United Nations technical aid mission, thecommissioners actually set themselves up in opposition to it. In the latestcommunication of Mr. Dayal you will find the same thing repeated.

NOW WE COME TO THE POSITION IN REGARD TO THECONSTITUTION. As the representative of the United States mentioned in theSecurity Council, there are only two constitutional authorities - I am not agreeing- in the Congo; one was the President and the other was Parliament. PresumablyParliament includes the Government. He went on to say that one of them isextinct; therefore, only the President remains. That surely is the way of alldictatorships. Destroy all opposition and say, "I am the State." That is theposition. Therefore, the rule of Mr. Kasavubu - apart from Mr. Mobutu and themen lower down on the ladder - is an unvarnished and unashamed dictatorship,and here is the evidence if you want it. On the evening of September 5, 1960, theChief of State, in a declaration broadcast on the national radio, proclaimed ineffect that the Prime Minister had betrayed his office by provoking discord withinthe Government, depriving citizens of their fundamental liberties and plunging thecountry into fratricidal civil war. He therefore revoked the Government withimmediate effect and named the President of the Senate, Mr. Joseph Ileo, to forma new Government. He asked the United Nations to assure peace and order; that isto say, having usurped power he expected the United Nations to police hisusurpation. That is in fact what is happening!

During the same evening the Prime Minister spoke three times to the populationindicating the President was no longer Chief of State and calling upon the peopleand the workers and the army to rise. That is to say, they have already got a stateof civil war.

In the face of an imminent breakdown of law and order, with a civil war alreadyunder way in parts of the country, and with a clear threat to the United NationsForce in their function of maintaining peace and security, the Prime Minister thatnight called for a closing of all major ports to traffic of the United Nations. Thatis to say, they have taken action hostile to the United Nations. They have takenpeople into custody and they have threatened to use force. They have givenultimatums to certain people in other contexts.

What we are saying is this: the situation having reached its present state, it is nownecessary for the United Nations to govern or get out.

Also during the night 5 September the Council of Ministers published acommuniqué declaring the Chief of State deprived of all his functions; so we havea situation where one cancels the other out. I will not go into the background of

this situation, but I will come to the position of Mr. Kasavubu himself. I thinkthere are many here who are temperamentally and, I think, in a senseconstitutionally legitimists in their thinking, that here is a Head of Stateuniversally recognised. Up to a point this is true. But the recognition of aconstitutional Head of State requires the observance of the constitution and here Icommend particularly to my African colleagues, Mr. Kasavubu's statement onNovember 16, 1960, which stated:

"The institutions given to the Congo by the Loi fondamentale are not inkeeping with the sociological and political realities of the country."

In other words, this is a polite way of saying that the African is not fit to haveparliamentary government. For that reason the local authorities of the Republic ofthe Congo wish these institutions to be modified, with due regard to the unity andterritorial integrity of the Congo and taking into account the defects of thefundamental law and experience of the months which have passed since thepromulgation of independence.

"The problem is an institutional one. It can only be solved by theCongolese authorities guided by the wishes of the people."

The only snag in this is neither the people nor the Congolese authorities apartfrom Mr. Kasavubu and his creatures do not exist, or it may be that Mr. Kasavubuhimself is at times not so independent.

Therefore, the position is this: Mr. Kasavubu says the Loi fondamentale is not inkeeping with sociological conditions. In other words, he wants to rewrite theconstitution. What happens to the sanctity of the constitution if every Presidentalso wants to do that? That is another way of saying, "Well, I like power; I do notlike any limitations on it, so I shall put it away."

One of the contentions which must be refuted is that the closure of Parliament wasnot high-handed. Mr. Kasavubu has said that Parliament was not closed in a high-handed way. Says he, "the chief physical difficulty preventing the assembly ofParliament is that a state of disorder, fomented by the supporters of Mr.Lumumba, deters members of the provinces from returning to Leopoldville." Iam quite prepared to say, for argument’s sake that Mr. Lumumba may also havebehaved in that way, but that does not mean that Parliament should not meet.

"...This difficulty will only be solved by so adapting the institutions as togive more effective guarantees that the rights of the provinces will berespected ...

"Parliament is certainly competent to control the executive power and, ifneed be, deny it confidence. It is not within its power, however, to restoreto the Government on the demand of the Prime Minister, a prerogative of

which it has been stripped;" - if you can understand the meaning of thissentence, well, you must be a genius - "and even if it had that power itcould only be subject to authorisation by the majority required when a newGovernment appears before both Houses of Parliament. In other words, atwo-thirds majority."

Mr. Lumumba asserts that he is Prime Minister by virtue of a parliamentarydecision, which decision is attacked as illegal by Mr. Kasavubu on three counts;that is, he questions the legality of Mr. Lumumba's position. Mr. Kasavubucontends that it constituted an abuse of power and that it was taken by the threatof armed force, the necessary majority of votes not having been obtained. He saidthat the vote was 60 to 19. This, of course, would total 79. In the Senate ittotalled to 43.

I want to say here that it has been contended that these votes are 19 votes short ofthe required majority. This, in fact, is not true, because I looked at the Congoleseconstitution, and it says "two-thirds of those present and voting." And this ismore than two-thirds of those present and voting. Therefore, the boot is on theother foot.

This is the constitutional position, although I really doubt it, because there isnothing in this except the sheer wish on the part of Kasavubu to govern just as helikes. I am putting it euphemistically; I do not think he has the power to do so.

THEREFORE, WE COME TO THE PROBLEM OF WHAT SHOULD BEDONE. We have set forth our position in this matter in the draft resolution[A/L.331] which is before you.

Firstly, we think that it is necessary in the conditions of the Congo that thereshould be created a new atmosphere, by putting a brake on terrorism and byleaving it to the United Nations to assist in the maintenance of law and order andto prevent acts of aggression. It should prevent the threat to peace and securityand it should fulfil the mandate containing the implications to which theSecretary-General has referred. We must then enforce it by opening the doors ofthe houses of detention where these people are.

After all, there are 20,000 troops in the Congo, and if disciplined troops cannottake effective action against irregulars, then there must be something wrongsomewhere, and I would not like to say any more. If there are 20,000 disciplinedtroops under an effective command, they should not be hit in the face by theirregulars called the Congolese Army. I do not apologise for saying this, becausethis lawless rabble, these murderous units that are called the Congolese Army,have been committing atrocities and have been heaping indignities upondiplomatic officials. I am authorised by my Government to say that they havenever seen anything of this kind before, even in times of war. If those things can

happen, either the Belgians are running the show for the Congolese Army or theUnited Nations forces are not doing their job; and I would not like to say that,because I do not know.

Therefore, the doors of these houses of detention, wherever they are, should beopened and these political personalities, of one persuasion or another - moreparticularly, members of Parliament and Government officials and others who arehighly respected members of the community - must be released. If they arereleased, there may be some trouble, but that is a part of the democratic system.However, unless these people are released, it is not possible to take any stepsforward.

Secondly, as my Prime Minister has repeatedly said, and which I am asked torepeat again, there is no half-way house in this matter. The Parliament of theCongo must be convened. If it is necessary that this must be done under theauthority that exists, according to the representative of the United States, in thePresident, who is the only one that is left, then the United Nations and those whoare responsible for giving him his present prestige must persuade him toreconvene Parliament. Somehow or other he must put his signature on the callingof Parliament; that is all there is to it.

If necessary, the United Nations must offer protective custody required. Thiswould not be the first time that the United Nations has called upon countries to actin a custodial capacity. The Secretary-General well knows that even before histime we were called upon, in very difficult circumstances, to exercise custodialduties over people who far more effectively resisted and protested and who weremore capable of making trouble - such as in the case of Korea - and thosecustodial duties were carried out, and in the whole course of our troubles onlythree men lost their lives. Therefore, if the United Nations has to assert itsauthority, it must do so; and the custodial duties must be exercised in such afashion that the members of Parliament will be able to come to the Parliament andfunction freely and satisfactorily and, if necessary, add to the neutralisation of anyarea.

I am quite certain that this Assembly will endorse any course of action of thiskind, which will prevent civil war and which will rescue Africa from the bloodbath that will follow. Let me be quite clear about it. All of these fine phrases willdisappear, because the greater part of this area, thanks to imperialist rule, has beenleft neglected, without a system for the administration of law to assist it. I am nottalking about this, meaning thereby that the place is savage, or anything like that,but there has been so much administrative neglect under imperial rule that if tribalor fratricidal war should break out it would be the most sanguinary thing that everhappened. Taking that in to account, I am quite sure that the large number ofAfrican representatives in the Assembly, with their great influence, will urge theAssembly, to support any action that would facilitate the meeting of the membersof Parliament, the neutralising of any area and the preventing of unauthorised

troops, such as those of Colonel Mobutu, from interfering with them. After all, ifColonel Mobutu is the only one that is "strong," it should not be difficult for20,000 United Nations troops to deal with him.

Thirdly, we would say that, once this Parliament has met, we should be in a betterposition to say that the Congolese must decide their affairs themselves. At thepresent moment it is not the Congolese; it is the Belgians and a few people in theCongo who have emerged powerful out of a coup d’etat.

The draft resolution that is now before you, and which has been put forward byseveral countries, including ours, is a humble attempt at pointing out that themandate contained in the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions -and I have carefully read these backwards and forwards - is entirely adequate forour purpose... The Secretary-General, in referring to my contention aboutchanged conditions, said that he somewhat agreed with this pragmatic view so faras there was no change in principle, and turned around and asked if it is not truethat conditions had changed in these ways and is it also not true that conditionsaffect the positions of personalities. I suppose the implication is, "Can we set thesame stock today in regard to the members of the previous Government who weresanctified, as previously, by Parliament?" What does the Secretary-Generalhimself say? He says "changed conditions, without sacrifice of principle". In thisregard, the principle here is the constitutional authority. Therefore, I have thegood authority of the Secretary-General in feeling that these changed conditionsjustify vigorous action, which action has been asked for by the Security Counciland the General Assembly time after time.

I refer the Assembly to Article 14 of the Charter, under which we are operating.Every time I have come to this rostrum and have quoted the Charter I have alwayssubmitted that the Charter must be conceived as one instrument. You cannot treatit in isolation. The Charter must be treated as an entire document. Article 14reads:

"Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly mayrecommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation,regardless of origin."

The words that are important here are "situation" and "regardless of origin." Weare not dealing here with an international "dispute." We are dealing with asituation which exists in the Congo, and the Charter has been very careful toprovide for such situations. It says "regardless of origin." Therefore, it does notmatter whether it is an international war, or the war of the Belgians upon theCongo byway of aggression, which the Secretary-General has testified to orwhether it is a war that arises from a fratricidal conflict. No matter what, it mustbe deemed to impair, the "general welfare" also mentioned in the Charter. That isthe definition: "any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impairthe general welfare..."

What is "general welfare”? It does not refer to welfare as between nations.General welfare can only be construed in its natural meaning, the welfare of thegenerality of the people. The Charter, at the beginning, says, "We the peoples ofthe United Nations". They are the people who formulated the Charter and,therefore, when the welfare of the people of the Congo as a whole is affected, theprovisions of the Charter come into play. The Article goes on to refer to"situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Chartersetting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." My delegationsubmits that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Charter in regard toits Purposes and Principles. Therefore, I would request that we again look at thePurposes and Principles of the Charter in Chapter I, where it states: "...to takeeffective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to thepeace" - and there is no question about a threat to peace, apart from the facts thatstare us in the face - "and for the suppression of acts of aggression." If the Belgianauthorities are still there in the panoply of their military power, then thesuppression of acts of such aggression is required.

Article 1 goes on to refer to "other breaches of the peace," and this Assemblywould like to know from the Secretary-General whether, if Mobutu's forcescommit an act of aggression against the United Nations, that is not a breach of thepeace.

These are the purposes of the Charter which are covered by Article 14. Therefore,so far as my Government is concerned, we do not think there is anything in thisthat requires any particular modification or about which there is need to refrainfrom necessary action. On the other hand, it is necessary that we should takeaction in order to deal with this position.

So that the authority of my Government may be introduced into this argumentwithout room for doubt, I should like to read another extract from a statement myPrime Minister made only a few days ago:

"It just seems to me be a very extraordinary state of affairs for the UnitedNations Mission. If they cannot function properly, well, they are doingmore harm than good. Now, as I said, I do not want them to go away. Ithink that would be fatal but I do think that they should be made tofunction properly; they should be given authority by the Security Council,and there should be no vagueness or shilly-shallying about this question asthere has been."

He points out that he cannot understand the doubts about the legality of thisquestion. He went on to say:

"Looking at this matter apart from the question of our nationals beingthere and even apart from the fact that much has been done by the United

Nations which has not seemed to us to be right, I think it would be adisaster if the United Nations Mission were to be withdrawn. It wouldreally be defeat, a confession of defeat, and an act of despair and it wouldleave the Congo to go up in flames affecting the whole of Africa andcertainly affecting international affairs very greatly and intimately.

"It is obvious that the United Nations can only remain there if they canfunction properly; they cannot remain there just for some littlehumanitarian work which they are doing well, and just to bolster up someodd regime or some odd party there and to carry out their orders.

"But two or three things stand out. One is that in this welter there is notmuch law and order left in the Congo. There is no real governmentauthority functioning except in some local areas where a bit of the army ispresent. The army itself is completely undisciplined and ill-disciplined,and does more or less what it chooses."

He goes to say that:

"... persons coming in by illegal means cannot assume a legal garb. Now,Colonel Mobutu appointed a number of students from college as aCommission to carry on the government of the country, and where is theauthority for this?"

There is much more I could have quoted to the General Assembly if I had thetime, but it is not necessary.

THEREFORE, IN ALL HUMILITY, I COMMEND THIS DRAFTRESOLUTION, which I have been asked by the sponsors to present to theAssembly. In explaining this draft resolution, I will not go through the preamblein great detail. It is based on previous resolutions passed by the Assembly and bythe Security Council. If refers to the "grave and ominous developments andcontinuing deterioration in the Congo." These are mild words. The "grave andominous situation" is the situation of the ominous prospect of a blood bath inAfrica, a challenge to the position of the United Nations in Africa, the possibilityof an international conflict and, what is more, a fall in the prestige of the UnitedNations in the world, which would be harmful to the cause of humanity,especially at the present time when the world must proceed to disarm if it is tosurvive.

Secondly, we say that the deterioration continues, because just before this meetingwas called came - I will not call it a tragic climax yet - the position where theUnited Nations forces themselves are opposed by force by Mobutu's troops. Thedraft resolution goes on to say:

"Noting with grave concern the hostile attitude and resistance of armeddetachments to the operation of the United Nations in the Congo asrecently reported by the Special Representative of the Secretary-Generaland also the continuation of lawlessness, violence and continuingdeterioration of the economic situation in the Congo;"

This is what Mr. Hammarskjold referred to the other day, when he said there are200 deaths every day, there is poverty and suffering, there are refugeeseverywhere, and so on. But how can the economic affairs of that country be putright when there is civil war and when those in authority are shedding blood andexerting pressure for the purpose of promoting it and the one authority that hasbeen sent there for this purpose, namely, the United Nations, has desisted fromacting, up to the full, to its mandate? Therefore, the draft resolution continues tostate:

"Conscious of the inescapable and urgent responsibility of the UnitedNations both in the interests of the Congo as well as in the interests ofpeace and security which stand endangered and for the avoidance of gravecivil war;"

Then we go on to say what we think should be done. The operative paragraphsstate:

"1. Considers that the United Nations must henceforth implement itsmandate fully to prevent breach of peace and security, to restore andmaintain law and order and the inviolability of persons, including UnitedNations and diplomatic personnel and property, in accordance with theCharter and to take urgent measures to assist the people of the Congo inmeeting their most pressing economic needs;

"2. Urges the immediate release of all political prisoner under detention" -no one can say the sponsors are acting in a partisan way, we say allpolitical prisoners - "more particularly, members of the CentralGovernment of the Congo and officials of Parliament and others enjoyingparliamentary immunity;

"3. Urges the immediate convening of Parliament and the taking ofnecessary protective measures thereto by the United Nations, includingcustodial duties;

"4. Urges that measures be undertaken forthwith to prevent armed unitsand personnel in the Congo from any interference in the political life ofthe country as well as from obtaining any material or other support fromabroad."

It was the Secretary-General who told us in the Security Council that the army has

entered politics. That creates a new situation. It is called an army only bycourtesy. It is an armed rabble, a lawless lot of people who are offering resistanceto the United Nations, committing pillage and arson, robbing people, stoppingtheir cars and heaping indignities upon them, and if I were a Congolese, I wouldbe heartily ashamed, whatever political party I belonged to. Therefore, we saythat these men, the so-called Congolese army, must be disarmed, Mr. Secretary-General, and there should be no question that if you, as Secretary-General of theUnited Nations, have sent out an appeal for the orderly forces of other countries tocome into the Congo, it is not right that they should be thrown into the midst ofthese irregular forces. If decent people are invited to a party, people who cannotobserve the dignities of it should not be there. Therefore, we say that this so-called Congolese army has no function in the Congo in the sense that it is notmaintaining law and order, it is not protecting the United Nations; on the otherhand, it is a promoter of lawlessness. Has not the United Nations in the past actedagainst people in Stanleyville? Has it not protected Lumumba against people whowere trying to arrest him in the early days? Therefore, we say there is no betterand more proper course than to disarm this army, confine the men to barracks orfind them other occupations if they are useful individuals. There would be plentyof technical aid work for them to do.

I submit to the Secretary-General that it is not right to let this "Congolese Army"endanger peace and prosperity in the Congo. We cannot defend, in our nationallegislatures, the idea that men bearing the President’s Commission, men of theIndian army and women of the Indian nursing services should be exposed to theindignities in the Congo. We are not among those who would want to withdrawfrom there on slight pretexts. More than our dignity, more than our safety, morethan our pride is involved. It is the United Nations which is involved, and we areentitled to consideration from the Secretary-General, not as an individual, butbecause he is the embodiment of our authority and function in this business.

Nations cannot be invited to this undertaking and be expected to remain there,when the ordinary decencies of civilised societies are not observed. Similarly, noregular organised army abuses the laws of its country. It would be subject tomilitary law. Any Indian army personnel in the Congo which commits theslightest breach of discipline would be severely dealt with, and I give a guaranteeof that on behalf of my Government and on behalf of myself. That has been ourposition in Korea and it has been the position everywhere else. Troops have goneout to the Congo at great sacrifice to themselves, as Mr. Hammarskjold said tothis Assembly a few months ago. It is no joy-ride, it is no picnic to go there, and,therefore, they must not be asked to shake hands with disorder.

I say that the members of this so-called Congolese army are a mob of irregulars orguilty of offences and crimes, who have committed havoc, who have heapedindignities upon people. Those among them who are decent should be enlisted inthe United Nations Force. Others should be enlisted to drive trucks and do otherwork, and the rest of them should be disarmed and confined to barracks. We

should like to know why those people who were at one time confined to barrackshave now been released.

You may say that this is strong language. But then, we are facing a situation inthe Congo which may set the world in flames. I think the United Nations mustwake up to this responsibility and must stand fully behind the authority of theSecretary-General in taking strong action. The Organisation is not weak. ThisOrganisation was strong enough even before the new admissions took place.Now it is even stronger because 178 million people, including the people ofCongo, are represented here. We are doing service to the Congolese people bytaking this position. We are in the Congo for their service and not in order toinflict what one representative said was a kind of joint imperialism. We in Indiaknow enough about the nature of imperialism; nobody can teach us anythingabout the ways of imperialism.

We have come to a situation now when every Congolese, whatever might havebeen his political persuasion in the past, particularly the young men, must set hisheart and mind to it and must make the sacrifice of coming forward so the law andorder, the authority of the United Nations, the cause of peace and the ideas ofliberty in their own country, might prevail by their co-operation, for themaintenance peace and security in the world. That should be their primaryconcern and not the occupation of any place of seeming glory or power.

We once again affirm that the mandate that has been given to the Secretary-General is adequate for the purpose. Unless the United Nations Command shakesitself up for this purpose, there will be more and more grievous situations, and nogood will come out of them. What we do not do today, with comparatively limitedresources, limited sacrifices and limited harshness and unpleasantness, will haveto be done later with much greater sacrifices, harshness and unpleasantness.

We are not a country that cries out for the use of force. We are not a country thatwants to trample upon law. We are proud of our sovereignty, as you are all wellaware. We shall guard against any intruder. But here we are not trampling downon the sovereignty of a country; we are protecting the authority of the Charter ofthe United Nations. We are seeking to support such measures as will rescue thisgreat land of Africa, with its tremendous resources and potentialities, where,largely owing to the impact of the public opinion organised through the UnitedNations, after ages and ages of servitude and slavery, countries have come intoemancipation. We from Asia are the people who are deeply shocked and grieved.Those of you who come from Africa, from whatever State it might be, whateveryour past might have been, whatever your present associations are; there cannotbe one African in this Assembly who is not moved to shame and concern by thesituation that has arisen, and who would not want to throw his weight on the sideof the observance of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. This ismy submission.

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly December 19,

1960.54

[In this speech, Mr. Menon replied to statements by the delegates of Belgium,Canada, Congo (Leopoldville) and the United Kingdom, and dealt with theAnglo-American draft resolution as well as the revisions to the non-aligneddraft resolution sponsored by India. Only the last part of the statement isreproduced here.]

The Anglo-American draft resolution has all the appearances of reasonableness.With great respect, I would say that it is extremely well drafted. It may conveythe impression that it could accomplish something. But we shall not abstain fromthe vote on the draft resolution. I am authorised in this respect to speak for allthose delegations which have co-sponsored the other draft resolution with us. Wedo not take this position because the Anglo-American draft resolution is anotherdraft resolution, but because its purpose is different and its effect will be toencourage the forces of civil war in the Congo, and ultimately to lead to what Mr.Hammarskjold has characterised as a Spanish war situation.

The second preambular paragraph of the Anglo-American draft resolution beginswith the words "Noting with anxiety." Now, if one notes with anxiety one mustdo something about it; otherwise it becomes a vague and escapist statement. Theparagraph reads: "Noting with anxiety the continued existence of unsettledconditions in various parts of the Republic of the Congo..." We should like theAssembly to take particular notice of the words "unsettled conditions in variousparts of the Republic of the Congo." Now, that is no description of what ishappening in the Congo. There is a state of anarchy, there is no authority, it is notjust a disturbance here or there. The paragraph continues: "which have involvedacts of lawlessness and of violence against persons of both Congolese and non-Congolese nationality, including personnel of the United Nations."

That is what we have always said, and we agree with that statement. But it shouldbe understood that in the context of this draft resolution it looks as though the so-called authorities of the Congo have nothing to do with the disturbances there andthe acts of lawlessness against people of Congolese and non-Congolesenationality. Our contention, however, is that what should be noted with anxiety isthat the people who are in so-called authority in the Congo are promoting thesedisturbances and acts of lawlessness and are responsible for them. According toMr. Dayal’s report, this aggression has been committed by the Congolese armyagainst the United Nations troops.


Therefore, the second paragraph of the preamble to the draft resolution is entirelymisleading...

We then come to the third paragraph of the preamble to the Anglo-American draftresolution. That paragraph reads:

"Mindful of the obligations and responsibilities assumed by the UnitedNations to assist in the restoration and maintenance of law and order forthe purpose of securing the maintenance of international peace andsecurity, and of safeguarding civil liberties and the political independenceand territorial integrity of the Republic of the Congo."

Now, I would say that that wording goes very much further towards interfering inthe internal affairs and reducing this to an international issue than anything we sayin our text. It talks about safeguarding civil liberties in the Congo. That is a verydesirable thing, but, of course, civil liberties cannot be safeguarded in a countrywithout interfering in that country’s internal affairs. The paragraph also talksabout "international peace and security." I have been very careful to quote Mr.Hammarskjold strictly accurately, and he has never used the words "internationalpeace and security" in connection with this question; he has always said "peaceand security" - and there is a distinction.

Thus, this rather generously worded draft resolution should not mislead anyone. Itjust leaves things turning in the air and does not get us anywhere.

The fourth paragraph of the preamble reads: "Recognising that theaforementioned obligations and responsibilities are still an urgent United Nationsconcern" - we all agree with that - "and that all necessary action should betaken..." But who decides what is necessary action? And why should there beobjections when other people ask that necessary action should be taken? Is not therelease of prisoners necessary action? Is not the restoration of Parliamentnecessary action? Is it not necessary action to stop having truck with a privatearmy? So again we have a misleading, escapist clause in this draft resolution.

We then come to the operative paragraphs. Paragraph 1 reads:

"Requests the Secretary-General to continue to discharge the mandateentrusted to him by the United Nations in accordance with the resolutionsof the Security Council and the General Assembly referred to above..."

We entirely agree with that; it is exactly what we have said. Therefore, there canbe no objection to our draft resolution in that respect. Paragraph 1 goes on:

"and to continue to use the presence and the machinery of the UnitedNations to assist the Republic of the Congo in the restoration andmaintenance of law and order throughout its territory."

I should like to make two observations in that respect. This operative paragraphasks that the presence and the machinery of the United Nations - and this includesthe military machinery, because the bulk of the United Nations machinery in theCongo is military - assist the Republic of the Congo. I suppose that "the Republicof the Congo" here means the authorities of the Congo. Now, how can we helpthem to restore law and order when they are the law-breakers, when they areusing illegal authority?

Operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution reads:

"Further requests the Secretary-General to continue his vigorous efforts toensure that no foreign military or paramilitary personnel are introducedinto the Congo or are in the Congo in violation of the pertinent resolutionsof the Security Council and resolution 1474(ES-IV) of the GeneralAssembly."

Unless he applies the relevant provisions of the Charter, how is the Secretary-General to prevent the entry of military or paramilitary personnel? We raised thatquestion in the Advisory Committee. The only way to prevent personnel frombeing introduce is for States members of the United Nations not to indulge inintervention, or for the United Nations forces to be able to control egress andingress to prevent people from coming in, to take over the responsibility ofissuing permits and of regulating entry into the territory. Therefore, what is askedfor in the paragraph appears to be much more than what we are asking for. TheSecretary-General is to take vigorous action particularly with regard to theintroducing of new personnel, according to this paragraph of the Anglo-Americandraft resolution. But what about all those things that are already in the Congo?What about the nine tons of Belgian weapons, Mr. Secretary-General? Is that alsoincluded in this paragraph?

We then come to operative paragraph 3, which:

"Calls upon all States to refrain from the direct and indirect provision ofarms or other materials of war and military personnel and other assistancefor military purposes in the Congo during the temporary period of militaryassistance through the United Nations..."

Again, on the face of it this does not appear to be at all harmful. If conditionswere different, if there was an agreed position about those who are operating inthe Congo, and so forth, one could understand this provision. But, as I havestated, at the present moment there is a large quantity of Belgian arms inside theCongo, the Congolese authorities are maintaining an army - wherever the fundscome from - and there is all this intervention. In such conditions the mereoperation of paragraph 3 would catch the situation at a point of disadvantage toone side inside the Congo itself. And that would lead to what has been called a

Spanish war situation - that is, the United Nations would be used to hold the ringagainst those who might be training to resist aggression. We are not suggestingthat arms should come in freely and that civil war should be promoted. But, in ouropinion, the adoption of paragraph 3 of the operative part of the Anglo-Americandraft resolution would be a weighted decision.

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution:

"Requests the Secretary-General... to do everything possible to assist theChief of State of the Republic of the Congo in establishing conditions inwhich Parliament can meet and function in security and freedom fromoutside interference."

In all conscience I want to ask whether Mr. Kasavubu illegally suspendedParliament, beyond the authority conferred by the Loi fondamentale, becausethere was interference from outside? Who were the interference from outside?Did any of the power blocs interfere? Did the Belgians interfere? Did the UnitedNations interfere? There was no interference from outside at all. PresidentKasavubu himself has said - I read out the passage in question the other day - thatin the existing sociological and political conditions these institutions were notsuitable and so he had changed them.

So there is no question of the Secretary-General going to the assistance of theCongo unless, of course, he is going to undertake some ideological training andconvince Kasavubu that there is nothing peculiar in the biological or ethnologicalmake-up of the Africans, or the Asians, or the Swedes, or the Norwegians, whichmakes them fit or unfit for these institutions. Therefore operative paragraph 4again is totally misleading and is barking up the wrong tree.

Then we have all this about the violation of human rights in the Republic of theCongo, which operative paragraph 5 says is "inconsistent with the purposes thatguide the United Nations action in the Congo" and goes on to say that nomeasures "contrary to recognised rules of law and order will be taken... againstany person held prisoner." Now this is exactly what we have been saying; releaseeverybody who has been detained, but in the speech made on behalf of theresolution itself it is said that we cannot say this about the release of prisonersbecause that would be interference. The paragraph goes on to request theSecretary-General to continue his efforts to assist the Republic of the Congo -whatever that means - in ensuring respect and so on. If it means the wholeterritory of the State, it must include even those who are at present held in prison,who are non-political, everybody - if it means the authorities, then as I said beforeit is the authorities that are not giving respect to the rules of civil and humanrights within the country.

Operative paragraph 6 is about the International Committee of the Red Cross. Iconfess I am surprised at the appearance of this paragraph. I will not here repeat

the phrase that is sometimes mentioned in the United Nations lobby about "aspirinsolutions", that is, send a couple of aspirins and everyone will be happy. I am notsaying that the Committee of the International Red Cross is not good. It is anorganisation mentioned in the Geneva Conventions and should be allowed tooperate, but we have had the instance where, in the case of the prisoners inStanleyville, we wanted reports from the International Red Cross but when weasked the Congolese authorities to allow the International Red Cross to visit theirprisoners, the Prime Minister included, we did not get any answer. Now how canthe supporters of the present administration and the present arrangements... saythat they express the hope that the International Committee of the Red Cross willbe allowed and so on when even in a small matter they have not been able to getthrough?

Finally, there is the question of the round table conference. Here again is a wordthat sounds so nice; a round table conference means a conference of personsholding opposing views, but who is to sit round the round table? If it is a questionof the reconciliation of Mobutu and Kasavubu and any other aspirants in regard toparticular problems, it is another matter, but over and above that the round tableconference is going to be called by the President who is himself a party to thedispute. Therefore any attempt at mediation in this matter must either be carriedon with the aid of the contending parties or by the Secretary-General. I wouldtherefore say that this round table conference is one in name only. It is not aconciliation conference and to call upon the General Assembly to support thepartisan attempt of one side is gross interference not only in the internal affairsbut in the squabbles that are going on and to take sides in them.

Now that I have said that, people may say that this is a destructive approach to thematter, but you know that you cannot build unless you first destroy, and this draftresolution is a roadblock to progress, it will mislead the General Assembly...

NOW WE COME TO THE EIGHT-POWER DRAFT RESOLUTION[A/L.331/Rev.1]. There are two new paragraphs in the revision and some of myco-sponsors have asked to speak about them fully. In regard to the draft resolutionitself, we understand that it has been said that in this draft resolution we and theother sponsors are against the Charter and that we have called for illegalities. Mydelegation would like to ask our colleagues where, if they take each of theseparagraphs, they can point out a single illegality. In fact, there is no request in itfor any specific measure; that is left to the Secretary-General, and since theSecretary-General has told us he will not do it, we can be sure there will be noillegality.

Let us take each one of these paragraphs. The first preambular paragraph recallsthe previous resolutions, and there is nothing illegal about recalling previousresolutions. The second preambular paragraph goes on to speak of the grave andominous developments and continuing deterioration in the Congo, the prevalence

of anarchic conditions and the absence of authority. All this was said by Mr.

Ormsby-Gore55 in his speech and therefore this cannot be characterised as illegal.

The third preambular paragraph notes with grave concern the hostile attitude andresistance of armed detachments to the operation of the United Nations as recentlyreported by the Special Representative. If that statement is illegal, impractical orundesirable, then I think the report submitted by the Special Representative fallsin the same category. All these facts are lifted from United Nations documents.

Then we go on to say that we are conscious of the inescapable and urgentresponsibility of the United Nations both in the interests of the Congo as well asin the interests of peace and security. We have not said international peace andsecurity. We say that peace and security are endangered and we seek to avoidcivil war. I am sure the General Assembly will not consider that there is anyillegality in referring to that.

If there is any illegality, it can only be in the operative part of the resolution and Itherefore invite the General Assembly’s attention to operative paragraph 1. Theparagraph reads: "Considers that the United Nations must henceforth implementits mandate fully to prevent breach of peace and security..." etc. There is no needfor me to read the whole of this, but is there anything illegal in saying that themandate must be implemented more fully, and ultimately to the fullest extent thatmay become necessary in the restoration and maintenance of law and order, theinviolability of diplomatic personnel and so on? These are in accordance with theCharter, how can they be illegal?

Operative paragraph 2 "urges" the immediate release, "urges" - it does not say goand open up the jails - "of political prisoners under detention, more particularlythose enjoying parliamentary immunity." Operative paragraph 3 "urges" theconvening of Parliament. In the Secretary-General’s statement of today, and in astatement of the United Kingdom, it has been said that all steps possible should betaken in order to bring about the convening of Parliament. Therefore, urging theimmediate convening of Parliament and the taking of all necessary protectivemeasures of the United Nations, including custodial duties, is part of the purposeunder the Security Council resolution aimed at maintaining law and order. Whatis more, protective measures have been undertaken in the past, in the case of theAustrian ambulance. There are custodial duties, because they have put aprotective ring around the whole place, keeping Mr. Lumumba from beingattacked by other people. Therefore there is nothing in operative paragraph 3 thatis illegal.

Operative paragraph 4 urges that measures be taken forthwith to prevent armedunits and other personnel from interfering in the political life of country and fromobtaining support from abroad. I will challenge anybody to point out whether any

55 David Ormsby-Gore, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom

words in this are contrary to the resolutions of the Security Council or to thesentiments or the interpretations of the Secretary-General himself. There isnothing illegal in paragraph 4.

Operative paragraph 5 draws the attention of the Government of Belgium to itsgrave responsibilities in regard to the resolutions of the United Nations. This, Ibelieve, is already Charter practice; if there is any default, attention is drawn to it,and there is no interference in the sovereignty of Belgium. It is a paragraph whichmerely draws attention to something.

Operative paragraph 6 deals with the withdrawal of Belgian military and quasi-military personnel and refers to the repeated pledges given by the BelgianGovernment itself. This also is part of our history.

Then come the two new paragraphs, which require some explanation.

Operative paragraph 7 suggests that a Standing Delegation - we will not call it anadvisory commission, because it is not certain what functions it should performand we do not want to confuse it with the Advisory Committee which meets here- representing the General Assembly and appointed by it should function in fullco-operation with the Secretary-General’s Special Representative in the Congo.The Delegation should be composed of representatives considered by the GeneralAssembly itself as specially qualified to advise on the United Nations operationsin the Congo. This evening the Secretary-General made a statement in which hesaid that the responsibility should be shared, that there must be interpretation,there must be watchfulness, this, that and the other and it appears to me that this iseither intelligent anticipation or perhaps more. At any rate, there is nothing illegalin the stationing of a Standing Delegation in the Congo to advise the UnitedNations authorities who are interpreting a rather vague resolution.

Therefore, we submit that is a very helpful suggestion and also it points to the factthat the sponsors of the resolution are not disregarding the United Nations. Theyare stating that the work should be done within the competence of the UnitedNations itself. In view of the statement made by the Secretary-General abouttechnical assistance and so on, operative paragraph 8:

"Recommends that all necessary economic and technical assistance shouldbe afforded to the Congo through the United Nations by member Statespromptly so that such assistance be not used as an instrument of a channelfor continuing foreign intervention."

There are two ideas: one that we must give assistance; secondly, in the form ofassistance intervention should not take place.

The Secretary-General rightly asks: is it right for us to be asked for thewithdrawal of Belgian technical personnel when there is no one else to perform

the tasks which they should perform? My delegation has not said at any time thattechnical personnel of any particular nationality should be excluded. There hadbeen a request, I believe, by the Government of Lumumba and by Kasavubu - anoriginal request made to us - that no troops belonging to the great Powers be sent,and only non-committed nations should be sent. That was not our request. Now,the Belgian nationals and the Belgian Government raised the question, as wasstated yesterday: Is it wrong to give assistance to these people who are in suchneed of it?

I refer to Article 25 of the United Nations Charter which states: "The members ofthe United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the SecurityCouncil in accordance with the present Charter". And the Security Council hasasked for this assistance in this way.

Then there is Article 49 which states: "The members of the United Nations shalljoin in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon bythe Security Council."

The Secretary-General’s contention is that such personnel are required - and thereis no doubt that they are required... Is it not right for us to expect that these veryBelgian personnel who are personnel of a member State of the United Nations,should be placed at the disposal of the United Nations? Why should they functiondifferently, especially having regard to the things that have happened? We cannotcompel them, but there are Articles 25 and 49 which place upon them the duty,and therefore our right to ask for it. Therefore, all this assistance should bechannelled. Now, I have finished explaining the resolution.

I hope that my lack of capacity to persuade or to convey the import of what I amsaying will not minimise from the importance of this matter. We have nowreached a situation in the Congo where it definitely looks that unless we takebold, determined and wise action, it will be the parting of the ways.

MY PRIME MINISTER, SPEAKING IN PARLIAMENT, has repeatedly statedthat the withdrawal of the United Nations from the Congo would be a greattragedy. It would lead to civil war in the Congo, and it would disturb theconditions in Africa. It may lead to other things. He said also that it might be ablow to the prestige of the United Nations - not in a small way and for its capacityto function properly.

So, everybody is agreed that the withdrawal of the United Nations from thismission would be a highly regrettable event with great consequences. But, at thesame time, we have to look at the fact that already six countries have announcedthe withdrawal of their forces; some of them have taken them already - and theyare not six small countries with small contingents; all are Asian and Africancountries; all are members of the so-called uncommitted States. There are others

remaining, and while I would not like to mention them either by name, myGovernment is aware of the thinking in these countries.

We stand, Mr. Secretary-General, in situation where the United Nations might becarrying very grave responsibilities, without either the capacity for itsimplementation or where their very withdrawal might be a disapproval of a trendof policy. My own Government is committed to giving assistance at the request ofthe Secretary-General in pursuance of the Security Council resolutions. I am sureMr. Hammarskjold will bear out the fact that to the best of our capacity we haveoffered this, perhaps not liberally, but to the best of our ability and certainlypromptly. My Prime Minister has announced in Parliament that their withdrawalwould not be a matter of casual or hasty decision, but at the same time, asbecomes a democratic Prime Minister, he has told the Houses of Parliament thatin certain circumstances there would be no option for them but to withdraw.

I make the following observation, particularly for the ear of some delegations,that the part they are pursuing in submitting to this Assembly a resolution whichwould have exactly the adverse effect of what I assume they intend, should not betaken casually. I request them therefore not to press it and vote for the resolutionwhich we have submitted. The present situation has arisen because the SecurityCouncil could come to no decision. There are also some people who - not likeIndonesia which had not announced their withdrawal at that time, but had beencontemplating it - are in the same position, and whose views are not publiclyknown; but I believe the Secretary-General has some idea of what is likely tohappen...

In these circumstances even though one may be accused of lack of humility, Iwould submit to the authors of this draft resolution, with whom we have veryintimate relations - and, speaking for myself, whose bona fides I do not distrust -that they take into account that the introduction of these proposals at this latestage, which bear a superficial resemblance to what we ourselves propose, butcontain a joker in them, an element which makes them entirely unacceptable.And if they were not different from what we have submitted, they should not havebeen submitted. The resemblance is only superficial.

We have now reached the situation in the Congo where the United Nations mustfunction either vigorously, as stated by the draft resolution, or, as the Secretary-General indicated, it may have to consider pulling out.

If the United Nations pulls out then the consequences have to be taken intoaccount. If the United Nations had not gone there civil war might have takenplace or might not have taken place. Now the position is that, after five months ofintervention, after five months of United Nations presence we have a countrydeeply laden with anarchy, where those who have no legal authority function inauthority. In effect, the United Nations holds the ring for illegality. That positionis very serious and, while one expresses it emphatically, I am quite sure the

Secretary-General and responsible members of this Assembly will not take theview that this is either a note of alarm, or in any way containing some kind ofpressure attitude, but we want to convey to you without making any morecategorical statements that we are on the brink of a situation where, either theUnited Nations must face ignominy or perhaps it can retrieve itself as anOrganisation; but it will have failed in the first instance in a great purpose, whichwas to enable one of the newly liberated African States to maintain its integrityand independence and to be able to function as a full member of the UnitedNations, and to live in harmony and security with its neighbour States.

This is not purely a Congolese matter, this is not an African matter; this is a worldquestion. It is a world question just as the Korean War is world question. Thereare instances of this kind taking place all over the world. My country getsinvolved in these matters because, being a nation uncommitted to the power blocs,its services, when required, are asked for and we are glad to serve in such ways aswe can. We have now in South East Asia a similar situation, where the projectionof the cold war has already started military action, and if wise counsel does notprevail one dare not contemplate the consequences.

We must be aware of the fact that the United Nations action leads to twoalternatives. One is that a result of the civil war situation may lead to the Congobecoming an arena of contending ambitions. Alternatively, as the Secretary-General has pointed out, it may become a Spanish war situation, meaning therebythe United Nations, and the uncommitted nations are not required, so other peoplemight hold the ring in such a way as to freeze the arms that exist in the countryand prevent other arms from going in. Both of these alternatives are catastrophicpositions and history should not be allowed to repeat itself. The Second WorldWar was preceded by a similar situation in Europe and this time it is in Africa.

My Government takes an extremely serious view of it because we are not amongthose who would ask the Assembly to convene, when it has already had a veryheavy agenda, when this matter has been debated time and time again. Ourposition is not one of using the Congo situation either to reform the Secretariat orto castigate this person or that person or to amend the Charter, or anything of thatkind...

Let me say once again that we submit this draft resolution, in all seriousness and Ihope that none of the recriminations that have taken place in the previous debateor any similar considerations will prevail. I hope that those who are in agreementwith the draft resolution in principle will not find themselves disagreeing with oneword here or one word there and then abstain on this matter. This must gothrough and it will be proclaimed to the world that the United Nations mission isnot going to fizzle out, will not be allowed to fizzle out. In the interests of Congo,in the interests of Africa and in the interest of the world I submit this resolution.


[In this speech, Mr. Menon reviewed in some detail the legal basis of theUnited Nations operation in the Congo and the difficulties it encountered,and introduced a draft resolution for more vigorous action by the UnitedNations.]

...it is necessary at this stage to have a look at the problem of the Congo as it facesthe Congolese people, as it faces the United Nations and also, the problems ofworld peace and security...

Even at the risk of repetition, one has to go back to this issue, because the positiontoday is such that, unless we constantly remind ourselves of the circumstances inwhich the United Nations became involved in this matter, we are likely to wonderwhether our actions are right or wrong, at whether we should go faster or slower,or in one direction or another.

Therefore, I refer briefly to this document of July 13, 1960, when the UnitedNations was requested by the then Government of the Congo - as to thelegitimacy of which Government there was no doubt whatsoever - to take action.It was not as though the United Nations was left to decide for itself as to the typeof intervention that should take place, because the Government of the Republic atthat time requested the urgent dispatch by the United Nations of militaryassistance...

The document went on to say that this military assistance was asked for by theCongolese people, and the purpose of this request is totally justified by theCharter. The second sentence reads:

"This request is justified by the dispatch to the Congo of metropolitanBelgian troops in violation of the treaty of friendship signed betweenBelgium and the Republic of the Congo on 29 June 1960."

The document further states:

"Under the terms of that treaty, Belgian troops may only intervene on theexpress request of the Congolese Government. No such request was evermade by the Government of the Republic of the Congo and we thereforeregard the unsolicited Belgian action as an act of aggression against ourcountry."

56 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifteenth Session, Plenary Meetings, Part II,pages 195-207

We may well be asked whether the United Nations or all of us exercised foresightin not taking up this question at that time as an act of aggression under ChapterVII of the Charter. But, then, we can deal with the situation only as it is today.But so far as the Congolese Government was concerned - and at that time therewas no question as to who was the Government because the telegram was signedby both Mr. Kasavubu, who is the President of the Republic, and by Mr. PatriceLumumba, who was Prime Minister at that time - the document goes on to saythat the cause of the trouble in the Congo is the machinations of the colonialGovernment and the attempt to create movements of secession in their owncountry challenging the integrity of the Congo; that is to say, it was an attack onthe Congolese people, their independence, their dignity and their integrity.

This Government said at that time that it refused to accept this as an accomplishedfact and submit to the imperialist machination of a small group of Katangaleaders. Therefore, the request came to us, first of all, because of an act ofaggression. Then there was the fear of dismemberment of the territory and itseffect upon the sovereignty of the country. It was followed by other economicand social factors. That is one part of it.

The other part, which is highly relevant today, is contained in a document datedJuly 29, 1960, where the Secretary-General, in reporting on the implementation ofthe Security Council resolution of July 14, 1960, set out the agreement reachedbetween the Republic and the United Nations...

"The Government of the Republic of the Congo states that, in the exerciseof its sovereign rights with respect to any question concerning thepresence and functioning of the United Nations Force in the Congo, it willbe guided, in good faith, by the fact that it has requested militaryassistance from the United Nations..."

Now, so far as the United Nations is concerned, that position has not been altered.Neither assistance nor military intervention nor the introduction of militarypersonnel has taken place except in accordance with the previous request.Therefore, we are entitled to continue to expect this good faith.


"... it likewise states that it will ensure the freedom of movement" - this isvery important at the present time - "of the Force in the interior of thecountry and will accord the requisite privileges and immunities to allpersonnel associated with the activities of the Force...

"The United Nations takes note of this statement of the Government of theRepublic of the Congo and states that, with regard to the activities of theUnited Nations Force in the Congo, it will be guided, in good faith, by thetask assigned to the Force in the aforementioned resolution."

What are these tasks? They are to obtain the withdrawal or the evacuation of theBelgian forces, to prevent the dismemberment of the territory, and also to assist inthe non-emergence of factional disorder. Now, those three things are still beingcarried out by the Force.


"... in particular the United Nations reaffirms, considering it to be inaccordance with the wishes of the Republic of the Congo, that it isprepared to maintain the United Nations Force in the Congo until suchtime as it deems the latter’s task to have been fully accomplished."

In other words, on July 14, 1960, the Republic accepted that the decision on thetermination of these was a matter for the United Nations. Therefore, there cannoteven be unilateral denunciation...

The Security Council having taken into consideration the conditions under whichthe United Nations will participate in the solution of the problem of the Congo, itcame before the Security Council and neither the legality nor the admission of thisitem, nor the decisions at which the Council arrived, have been challenged eitherby the Assembly or by the Security Council, or by anyone elsewhere. In otherwords, all the action taken thereafter is consonant with the Charter.

So on 14 July and 22 July, the Security Council passed resolutions. The effect ofthose resolutions was to set out the purposes of the participation of the UnitedNations in the general difficulties in the Congo which were, as I said, to obtain thewithdrawal of the Belgian aggressors, as the Congo Government would say; torequest other States to refrain from any action that would promote this trouble; tooffer to the Congolese people economic, technical and other aid; and to assist inthe maintenance of law and order and to help them maintain the integrity of theCongo. Therefore, the position of the United Nations was consistent with theposition of the Congolese people and their Government, that their country was notto be dismembered, their independence was not to be violated, their future was tobe decided by themselves.

It may be asked why the Government of India desires at this particular time to gointo what some may regard as ancient history. The reason is that all that happensat the present time, whether it emanates from the President of the Republic or oneof the factional leaders who side with him, or from one of the secessionists whodo not side with any of the factions as such but generally challenge the entireauthority of the United Nations, the agreement, and the independence of theCongo itself, is disturbing and contrary to all of these basic ideas.

There then came a time when the matter again came before the Security Council,just before the emergency special session (of the General Assembly in September

1960). The Security Council confirmed the authority given to the Secretary-General by its resolution of 14 July.

My Government has never concealed the fact that in their view certain thingsmight have been done differently or that certain organisations might have had adifferent character, and so on. That is why we are here. But in our opinion, theresolution of 9 August places upon this Organisation as a whole, and certainlyupon the Security Council as a whole, until such time as the authority given to theSecretary-General is withdrawn, the responsibility for what has happened.Equally, it places upon the Secretary-General, under the Article which he hasquoted, the responsibility for executing its mandate. Both the General Assemblyand the Security Council are entitled to charge the Secretary-General that theinterpretation of the authority may have been excessive or wrong, his execution ofit might have been wise or unwise, might have been weak or strong. All thosecriticisms are possible in regard to an executive authority. But the originatingbody, the Security Council from whom this authority emanated, has neverinvalidated that authority and so far as I can see from my papers, that authorityhas not been withdrawn.

We are very much concerned in this matter because, while the Secretary-Generalis sometimes regarded as one individual, according to the Charter he isnevertheless head of an organ of the United Nations... It is quite true that at timeswe may differ as to whether his actions proved to be too weak or too strong, wiseor unwise, or whatever it might be, and when those actions must be considered,remedies must be sought, and so on. But since the tasks inherent in the office ofSecretary-General in this connection are carried out by so many people, who areunder the delegation of authority, not in the sense of the abdication of theSecretary-General, but only under such delegation for the execution of certainmatters, and since one of those who are on the spot happens to be a national of mycountry and has come under unfair and gross criticism, it is necessary for us totreat this in a very impersonal way...

We now proceed from August to September. In September of that year, theemergency special session took place and passed resolution 1474 (ES-IV) whichis more or less the charter of action so far as the Assembly is concerned. I said atthe beginning that the United Nations participation began in order to attain certainobjectives. Therefore we are entitled, after the passage of seven or eight months,to see what distance was travelled, how far away we are from the objectives,whether the gap between the objectives and the conditions which prevailed at thattime has been narrowed or otherwise.

LOOKING AT THE CONGO PICTURE TODAY, we find that, first of all, themovement for the disintegration of the Republic of the Congo, that is to say, theattack on its sovereignty, is stronger than it has ever been. In one part of theCongo, Mr. Tshombe, largely and mainly with the assistance of Belgian and

foreign mercenaries in personnel and resources, has challenged the existence ofthat Republic. What is more, he has offered a frontal challenge to the UnitedNations. Therefore, we are not faced merely with the question of whether we likethis or that person or some small legality, or something of that character. We arefaced with the basic and fundamental position that it was the common desire ofthe representatives of the Republic as it was at that time when they came to us,and on the basis of our sense of responsibility, that the integrity of the Congoshould not be violated. Today, after eight or nine months, we are faced with amovement of secession of a considerable character and there are suitableconstitutional processes that are put forward with all the appearance ofconstitutionality, except that they are not in conformity with the Loi fondamentaleof the Congo or any other published and declared legal documents which form thestructure of government and organs of that territory, which would divide it up.That is on the first aspect, whether the gap is wider than it was before.

Second is the question of foreign intervention, with which I shall be dealing atsuch length as I can in the time I have. Let us look at the position today. Aftereight or nine months, the main military resistance, not only to the United Nationsbut to the dignity, the unity, the future of the Congo as well, comes from foreignintervention. In other words, the aggression complained of by Mr. Kasavubu andthe late Mr. Lumumba at that time, has become almost permanent, and in spite ofthe various guarantees, assurances and hopes given to the United Nations, the coreof support given by the Belgian Empire to assist the enemies of Congolesenational independence in maintaining their selfish positions, is stronger than everbefore. Therefore, while there may have been withdrawals, there have been nowithdrawals of Belgian military power or intervention in such a way as to make apeaceful solution of this problem possible. So then, on the second point also,after eight months we are very far away.

Then we come to some other matters, which are of perhaps a more detailedcharacter, and which follow from the others. While in July of 1960, the Republic,as a unity, was not only appealing to the United Nations but expected the UnitedNations to do many things - and the United Nations acted in response to itsappeals - today we have a situation of non-co-operation with the United Nations.The forces of the world Organisation, as represented by either its civil servants or,in this particular case, its military arm, are incurring active hostility andsometimes hostility of a character which, but for the restraint exercised by theUnited Nations might well lead to more ugly situations. So on this third pointalso we are far away.

Then we have the situation that if the United Nations is to render aid in order, atleast, to deal with the conditions of famine and economic distress in the Congo, itshould be in a position where it enjoys ingress and egress with regard to thisterritory, as promised in the agreement between the United Nations and theCongolese Government...

All that has disappeared, and we have now reached a situation in which, forexample, the seaport that gives access to Leopoldville is being denied to theUnited Nations. And I want to tell my African and Asian friends, this is not aquestion of violation of the sovereignty of the Congo, and it would bemisrepresentation, a misunderstanding of the facts, to think that the UnitedNations is a kind of imperial Power that is trying to protect itself. Under theagreement it is entitled to the use of these places, and if that use is denied, thenthere is a breach of the agreement, and a situation in which the purposes cannot beimplemented. So, whether it be at Banana or Matadi, these are situations whichcause great distress and which would prolong the present state of affairs andprevent the peaceful solution that otherwise might be achieved.

Over and above that, we have in Katanga, one of the richest areas of the Republic,a state of civil war. It is often thought that it is only a question of Katanga havingan irredentist or secessionist movement, under the leadership of Tshombe. If thatwere so, it would be bad enough, because, after all, there is civil war in the Congoas a whole. But that is not the whole situation, so far as we know from all thedebates and all the material available to us; for, in addition to there being a civilwar - an irredentist, secessionist civil war - there is civil war in Katanga itself.That is to say, there exist in various parts of the territory of Katanga, north, south,and east and what not, fights among factions of such character that the progress ofthe country and its unity are very violently threatened - and all this with theinspiration, the active assistance, of the former colonial Power.

We come now to a more recent instance where my Government feels it has toexpress itself without any fear of being open legitimately to the charge ofinterference in the internal affairs of sister State; that is, the proposals put out

before the world by what is called the Tannanarive Conference.57 It would notlie in the mouth of any one of us, nor would it be within the competence of anyone of us, to say that a member State could not change its character, itsconstitution, its structure or anything of that kind. But when the purposes of theUnited Nations intervention and when their participation is to maintain theintegrity of the Republic, and when the agreements have been on that basis on theinitiative of the Republic itself, then, obviously, for a section of the people to goto some place and have a conference and make a decision unilaterallyappropriating to themselves certain parts of this territory and breaking up itsunity, is not a thing that this Organisation could accept, because the Republic wasadmitted to the United Nations under entirely different conditions.

When the Republic is admitted to the United Nations under these conditions, andwhen practically without exception everybody here recognises Mr. Kasavubu asthe President of the Congolese Republic, my Government accepts Mr. Kasavubuand the Republic of the Congo. But it does not accept the functional competence

57 In March 1961, President Kasavubu convened a conference of 18 Congolese politicalpersonalities in Tannanarive, Madagascar. The conference agreed on a confederation of sovereignStates and opposed implementation of the Security Council resolution.

of Mr. Kasavubu in many matters. It is one thing to say that a President is theconstitutional head; it is something else to say that everything he does isconstitutional. But the first is more important in this context, that Mr. Kasavubuis the Head of the Republic and at the same time Mr. Kasavubu appears party to aconference that wants to break up the Republic. Now, these things do not gotogether.

So, when we take these five aspects, we find that today, after seven months beforethe Assembly and nine months before the United Nations, the Congolese problempresents the spectacle of the United Nations still having to assist in the preventionof the break-up of this territory, of assisting the people of the Congo to be able tohave a form of government under constitutional liberties for themselves and toenjoy their freedom in peace and dignity. And we have to see that the prestige andauthority which arise from the agreements so far as the United Nations isconcerned are maintained in this area.

There has been so much censorious criticism of actions of both the UnitedNations and various countries, criticism coming from various quarters, that if wewere to go into all of that we would be likely again to get lost and not be able tosee the wood for the trees.

THERE HAVE BEEN TRAGIC EVENTS IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. Inthe first instance, as Mr. Hammarskjold pointed out to us, the Army enteredpolitics; that is to say, instead of being the arm of the law, it took the law into itsown hands. Mr. Mobutu became a law unto himself, and while the President, as Isaid was constitutional, he acted unconstitutionally in conferring authority uponhim. We then had a situation wherein, as the Secretary-General told us in one ofhis reports, they had begun to participate in matters which were not their concern,thereby creating a different situation. That has gone on, and during the fewmonths just before we met we had the tragic situation that not only had factionalforces became the determining authorities in legislatures and constitutionalassemblies, but the strong arm and not the law had become the authority.

That was succeeded by the use of political assassination as an instrument ofpolitical settlement. All countries have passed through various vicissitudes.Sometimes they have had civil wars, revolutions, constitutional changes. Butthere is nothing that is more reprehensible as a method of political transformationthat political assassination. Political assassination is a euphemism for dastardlymurder. That is to say, when there is no public opinion behind a party, then thatparty or a group of individuals, instead of organising mass forces, tries to stab itsopponent in the back. That is political assassination. With the murder of Mr.Lumumba and his colleagues, and the murder of other people, there wasintroduced into the Congo situation something that is totally inconsistent with thepurposes of the Charter or with the purposes of the United Nations.

In those circumstances, we were getting no nearer to the five objectives laiddown. The Belgian forces were not only disrupting the unity of the Congo buteven making the economic functions of the United Nations difficult, so that theprestige and authority of the Organisation were being challenged - and not in asmall way. What I mean is that, if the United Nations fails in the Congo, it failsin the world - and that takes us nearer and nearer to a situation of a threat tointernational peace and security.

In February 1961, the General Assembly having recessed, the matter was againbrought up before the Security Council. At that time, we were confronted not onlywith the shocking murders and with the threat of civil war, but with another factorwhich is not often mentioned - the conditions of economic distress, As early asDecember 1960, the Secretary-General informed this Assembly that each day 200people died in the Congo because of lack of nutrition. If that was the situationthen, things are worse today. With the salaries paid to these factional armies andthe various advisers and what not - and the figures are available to us - there is notdoubt that the value of money has gone down, and therefore the distress of thepeople must be greater than ever before.

Thus, the matter came up before us once again in February of this year, and theSecurity Council was called upon to address itself to this problem. Here myGovernment desires to make a few observations, partly to clear our position andto inform the Assembly, and also to draw the attention of the Secretary-General. Itwas our view at all times, as we reiterated in the Assembly, that the originalresolutions passed by the Security Council gave this Organisation the necessarylegal authority to take the steps which were required to attain the objectives. Atthat time, there were doubts about it. But, in any case, those doubts have beencleared by the resolution of February 21, 1961. On that date, the Security Counciladopted the resolution which reiterated the previous objectives and urged theUnited Nations to:

"take immediately all appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence ofcivil war in the Congo, including arrangements for cease-fires, the haltingof all military operations, the prevention of clashes, and the use of force, ifnecessary in the last resort."

That is to say, the United Nations accepted the responsibility for using such forceas was necessary to maintain the purposes and the objectives of the agreementreached with the Republic of the Congo. It reaffirmed the previous resolutions,called again for the convening of the Parliament and for the reorganisation of thearmed personnel, who were undisciplined and not under proper control, and itcalled upon all States to extend assistance.

I will not go into the resolution in great detail. My country is not a member of theSecurity Council... Secondly, while normally it is not the business of a non-member of the Security Council to move a resolution, we were aware of the

events of the time and in full co-operation with the three movers of the resolutionand fully appreciative of the results reached.

We are glad to know that at least some of the permanent members of the SecurityCouncil, like the United States and the United Kingdom, approved of the

resolution. Mr. Stevenson58 said that, while he did not agree with everything, hethought it a good resolution. He said:

"Although we have some reservations about certain aspects of the draftresolution, which we have made known to various members, including thesponsors, we think it is basically a good resolution..."

Basically, what does the resolution say? Basically, it reaffirms all that was saidbefore and says that we must put more steam into this, more force into it, and getit implemented. We must be in business. Mr. Stevenson said that "it is basicallya good resolution and we believe it should be adopted."

The same thing was said on that occasion by Sir Patrick Dean. He asked:

"Can we not now lay aside our partisan feelings... [and] join together inapproving this draft resolution?"

Therefore, at least two of the permanent members of the Security Council, whichhave a great deal of responsibility for world security, supported this resolution.The Soviet Union did not oppose it. If the Soviet Union had objected basically tothe resolution, it had the right and duty - and, what is more, it has been thepractice of the Soviet Union in such cases - to cast its vote against the resolution.That would have meant a veto, and then that resolution would not have passed.Therefore, irrespective of the voting on this resolution - an abstention or two - thefact is that this is the law of the United Nations at the present time. In thisconnection, my Prime Minister has said:

"It is true that the United Nations... in existing conditions cannot gobeyond the world as it is today, and difficulties of the United Nations areoften a reflection of the difficulties caused by major conflicts and coldwar... Nevertheless, we do feel that it is the ineffectiveness of thefunctioning of the United Nations there that has led to the serious situationwhich we have to face in the Congo today. Because of it we felt that thetime had come for a strong lead to be given, and the Security Council didgive a certain lead. The problem then became one of implementing thatlead in that resolution."

My Government has always taken the view that resolutions, if they are passed,must be implemented. If there are ultimatums given or time limits set or courses

58 Adlai E. Stevenson, representative of the United States

of action outlined, it is necessary that they be followed to the full.

In pursuance of that resolution, therefore, the Secretary-General made an appealto various Governments, including our own, to supply the resources that wererequired for purposes of implementation. I propose to deal with our response tothis at a later stage. But it is our view that there can be no going back on thisresolution of February unless the United Nations is to abdicate its responsibilityand plunge the Congo into a phase of dismemberment and the loss of nationaldignity and national prosperity, and create a permanent challenge to itssovereignty.

MEANWHILE, IN THE AUGUST RESOLUTION, it had been suggested - eitherexpressly or implicitly - to the Advisory Committee on the Congo that someconciliatory processes should be undertaken. As a result, a ConciliationCommission was sent to the Congo. Members are aware that the AdvisoryCommittee on the Congo has had a large number of meetings. Its membershipincludes countries which do not have identical views either on the details of theCongo question or on other matters. Despite that fact the Committee appointedthe Conciliation Commission which went to the Congo and produced a report..

In paragraph 124 of its report [A/711], the Commission states that it considersthat, despite the criticisms made of the Loi fondamentale and despite the fact thatit is incomplete and ill-adapted to the needs of the Congo, it is the law of the land;and that unless and until there has been an amendment to the Constitution and inthe absence of any other basic law in the Congo, everyone concerned shoulduphold the Loi fondamentale as the basic law of the Republic.

Now, that sounds like a truism. It arises from the fact that, when he suspendedParliament, Mr. Kasavubu overthrew the constitution and appropriated the powersfor himself. He said that parliamentary institutions were not in the sociologicalpattern of Africa. That used to be said by the Europeans, but that we should sayso ourselves does not seem right. In any event, although, in my Government’ssubmission, the Conciliation Commission exceeded its province in going into thefuture constitutional questions, it was entirely correct in saying that the Loifondamentale is the basic law of the Congo, the charter of the Congo.

In paragraph 126 of its report the Commission makes the following point. Noprovisional arrangements - that is to say, provisional arrangements resulting fromthe murder of Mr. Lumumba, factional fighting, the flux of time, and so forth -can be considered as legal until they are approved by Parliament in accordancewith the Loi fondamentale. Thus, the Commission comes back to the positionthat, even if factual situations required certain arrangements, these arrangementscan have no validity unless Loi fondamentale is respected.

In another paragraph of its report the Commission deals with the provisions of the

United Nations resolution with regard to averting the danger of civil war. Toavert such a danger and to obviate the danger of foreign military intervention, theCommission: "recommended and still maintains that attempts by Congoleseleaders to achieve a military solution of the present crisis must be checkedimmediately." The reference to a military solution by fratricidal war - that is, onesection of the Congolese people fighting another section and, what is more,sections of the Congolese people either collectively or individually fighting theUnited Nations, of which Congo itself is a part.

In paragraph 129, the Commission unanimously asks that the armed groups in theCongo should be reorganised and insulated from politics. That is a direct denialof the rightness of the action taken by Mr. Kasavubu, through Mr. Mobutu, inintroducing the army into politics and transferring political power and authority tothe armed forces of the Congo. The Commission says that the armed groups inthe Congo - including Mr. Mobutu's - should be reorganised and insulated frompolitics. It then goes on say that the reorganisation should be carried out by theUnited Nations. The Commission states in the preceding paragraph:

"It is also of the opinion that these various armed groups, undisciplinedmembers of which may at any moment break loose from their commandand terrorise the population, constitute a constant threat to law and order."

As I said earlier in this statement, one of the purposes of our participation in theCongolese problem is to assist in the maintenance of law and order.

The Commission, I repeat, considers that the reorganisation should be carried outby the United Nations. We read:

"... it suggests that this reorganisation be carried out with the assistanceand under the guidance of the United Nations through a comprehensivetraining scheme under a national defence council to be set up..."

Assistance in training of this kind was one of the earlier tasks undertaken by theOrganisation. As my Government understands it, the import of this paragraph ofthe Commission’s report is that, if Congolese factions or the Congolese people asa whole looked for partisan assistance from outside, they would be importing intothe Congo all the troubles that exist in the outside world, including the blast of thecold war...

In paragraph 136 of its report the Commission states that nothing can

"replace, bypass or circumvent the Parliament, which alone is theauthority empowered under the Loi fondamentale to take the stepsnecessary ..."

Thus despite the heterogeneous composition of the Conciliation Commission,

which, broadly speaking, represents the various views of the Asian-Africancountries which set it up at the behest of the United Nations, there is an adherenceto the constitutional position.

In paragraph 139 the Commission states:

"The present crisis will not be solved unless Parliament is reconvenedwithout delay. The Commission realises that in the present conditions ofunrest, many members of Parliament may fear for their safety."

They have every reason to do so, because some members of Parliament weremurdered. The Commission

"feels that adequate measures should be taken by the United Nations Forceto give protection to such members of Parliament as may desire it, so as toguarantee the exercise of the rights and immunities to which they areentitled..."

In paragraph 140 - probably the most important part of this report - we read: "Allthe Congolese leaders interviewed by the Commission" - and I must say that whenone looks at the list one notes that the Commission did not go into the question oflegitimism or otherwise; it interviewed practically everyone it could see -"referred in forthright terms to the necessity of putting an end to foreigninterference in the internal affairs of the Congo."

So long as the Republic of the Congo is part of the United Nations, and so long aswe are participating on the basis of a voluntary agreement, on the basis of anappeal made to us and once an agreement has been accepted it can be terminatedonly by the consent of the parties - the United Nations cannot be regarded as"foreign interference."

The "end to foreign interference" therefore means interference by other people,either by arms or by personnel, to assist this party or that party or the other party,to try to make havoc among a people who for years have endured colonialism,and party as a result of their own efforts, and partly by the impact of the liberationmovements in the rest of the world and the resurgence of Africa, have shaken offthe empire.

The report continues:

"... the Commission cannot emphasise too strongly the need for theUnited Nations to take urgent and effective measures for the immediateenforcement of the Security Council and General Assembly resolutionscalling upon all States to refrain from sending military assistance..."

Now, sending military assistance is bad enough, but if those people who have

been giving military assistance have been asked to go away and to allow this Stateto function in the context of the freedom to which they are constitutionallypledged, if that cannot take place, then how can we ask for anything else?Therefore, the failure on the part of the United Nations or of the member State orof other member States to bring this about is, in the opinion of my Government,as repeatedly stated by my Prime Minister to our Parliament and to the UnitedNations, the crux of the situation.

There will be no solution of the Congo problem unless Belgian intervention, inthe form of military personnel, military advisers, the supply of arms material - allthese things - is stopped; unless the Congo ceases to be a scene where the coldwar projects itself; where if the allies and the friends of those who are largelyresponsible for these troubles do not exercise their unquestioned influence withtheir friends, we cannot expect to get much peace.

We, ourselves, have very friendly relations both Belgium as a State and extremelyfriendly relations with the Belgian people as a people. We have very closeeconomic, cultural and other relations. We have had no domination of the Belgianempire over us. But I am sure the whole world has a feeling in regard to Belgium,which has been the victim of aggression twice in the last half century, when itsterritory was trampled upon, when, instead of being a country, it was used as aroad by the marauding armies of the German empire or of the Hitler regime.Therefore, all our sentiments, all our moral alignments, are in that way. Therefore,when we speak in these terms, it is not the indictment of a people or someirresponsible statement not taking into account the facts of the case. We are,therefore, opposing a situation where the empire which happily went out by thefront door has tried to get in by the back door and used the same methods ofdividing the people, of setting one lot of people against another.

There is only one thing an empire can decently do, and that is to end itself.Suicide is not justifiable under our human system for individuals, suicide isjustifiable for empires. The best thing they can do is to end themselves. As a greatBritish statesman in the past said, the proudest day of their empire will be when itcomes to an end. So, to return to this idea of coming back by the back door, thisCommission points out:

"The deliberate violations of this injunction, open or secret, are largelyresponsible for the continuing deterioration of the situation and the drift ofthe country towards civil war and disintegration."

The Commission then comes to the Belgians themselves:

"The Commission deplores the continued presence in various parts of theRepublic of the Congo of large numbers of Belgian and other foreignmilitary and paramilitary personnel, political advisers, and mercenaries.The Commission feels that immediate steps should be taken to remove

forthwith all such personnel not under the United Nations Command fromthe territory of the Republic of the Congo."

And finally the Commission says:

"The Commission has noted with special interest the Security Council’sresolution (S/4741) ..."

These people are on the spot. The Security Council passes a resolution from here.And while it is quite true that even if the Commission did not approve of theSecurity Council resolution, it would still remain the Security Councilresolution, it is a good thing that the Commission, which is dealing with thisdifficult problem, should reinforce the resolution, "which it welcomes as apositive contribution" to the settlement...

Then there is the reference to the murder of Mr. Lumumba and the request for aninvestigation...

THEREFORE, WE COME HERE TODAY WITH A VIEW TO SUBMITTINGto the Assembly a draft resolution in regard to the withdrawal of foreignpersonnel which today are not only the Belgians; it is not only a question of ahandful of Belgians. No one has any objection to a Belgian as a Belgian. It isbecause they are military advisers; it is because they are the leaders and fomentersof trouble; it is because they give direction and point to this; it is because theymake the task of the United Nations, and therefore, of peace, more difficult...

The presence of Belgian nationals, including military personnel in the Congo, hasbeen highlighted in the second progress report of November 2, 1960, which wassubmitted by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. This report hasbeen so long before us that it is not necessary for me to go into great detail exceptto point out that,

"... there has been increasing evidence of the return of Belgian nationalsinto many phases of public life in the Congo... Some Belgian nationals arebelieved to have been actively arming separatist Congolese forces, and, insome cases, Belgian officers have directed and led such forces ... Advisersof Belgian nationality have been returning to governmental ministries bothin Leopoldville and the provinces, partially through what seems to be anorganised recruiting campaign in Belgium."

We read in the report:

"Soon after a measure of security had been reestablished in the Congo, arecruiting agency for the Congo was set up in Brussels and supportedLeopoldville."

"As a result of the concerned activities of the recruiting agencies, the taskof ONUC has been made more difficult."

"Belgian influence is also seen in the military field."

"In Katanga" - Katanga is today practically the Belgian empire - "Belgianinfluence is omnipresent. Virtually all key civilian and security posts are eitherheld directly by officials of Belgian nationality or controlled by advisers torecently appointed and often inexperienced Congolese officials. Significantly,within the security forces, there are according to the latest available data, 114Belgian officers and 117 Belgians of other ranks in the gendarmerie, and 58Belgian officers in the police. These figures do not reflect any significant recentincrease, although several officials have been brought from Belgium recently tofill specific key posts."

"In the so-called ‘Autonomous State of South Kasai’ there is also aconsiderable Belgian presence."

These are the positions as of November 1960 and also as of today.

The Security Council resolution of February 21, 1961, has not been implementedbecause the only way the personnel can be withdrawn is by the exercise of theresponsibility that the member State of Belgium owes to this Organisation to carryout the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly.

So far as we know - these are United Nations figures, on which I place reliance -there are twelve Belgian officers in Leopoldville; twelve foreigners, mostlyBelgians, in Kasai; 350 Belgian officers and foreign mercenaries in Katanga. Inaddition, Congolese officers to an unspecified number have been sent both intoFrance and Belgium for training with a view to participating in these troubles.There are more than 100 of these officers from Katanga who are training inBelgium and France. It is very difficult to understand how a member State, inview of its responsibilities under the Charter, can use the operations of its militarymachinery to accept from a territory that is not a State military personnel for thepromotion of trouble of this kind.

In addition to this, it is now said that nationals of the Union of South Africa andof Rhodesia have been enlisted in the Foreign Legion. I am quite certain that mycolleagues of the African States will take this into account. These elements arebad enough in their own countries, but if they project their apartheid policies andtheir general authority and outlook in order to participate in adventures of thiskind, then the future of the Congo must be bleak indeed. If these people are notrepresenting their States, according to the positions of their Governments, thenwhat is their status? Are they stateless persons? Are they military adventurers? Ifthat is so, then what is the position to be taken in regard to them?

NOW WE HAVE, IN ADDITION TO THAT, the fact that there was aConference at Tannanarive which, if it has resulted in some kind of agreementacceptable to all people in the Congo and been in conformity with the principlesof the Charter, would have been welcomed, irrespective of whether or not it wasunder the Loi fondamentale. We have no reason to believe that it represents theviews or the interests of a large number of the Congolese people.

So long as the Republic of the Congo is a part of the United Nations, we mustexamine the position of the delegation that was admitted here. We would say thatthe proposed remedies, such as the convening of Parliament, the withdrawal of theBelgian forces, the giving of greater economic and other assistance and removingthe army from politics, are the responsibility of the United Nations as a whole,and, without in any way trying to discriminate between the great Powers and thesmall Powers - and I say this in all humility - it is the particular responsibility ofthose countries which, at a time when it would have been wiser to leave things asthey were, conferred upon Mr. Kasavubu and his nominees the prestige andauthority of being represented in the General Assembly. It must be assumed thatthey have some influence with these authorities. My Government is completelysatisfied with the good faith of the countries that took this action, but at the sametime we believe that we have the right to ask them, having regard to theconsequences of this action and to the fact that they are closely related to thesepeople who are behaving in a way that is inconsistent with the United Nationsposition, to use their influence, political, moral, economic and otherwise, to bringthem into line with the policies and resolutions of the United Nations.

The answers given by these authorities who have found their place in the UnitedNations are something like the following. "There can therefore be no question ofimposing solutions on the authorities of the Republic..." My Government can onlydecide on the possibility of co-operating in the implementation of the resolutionof 21 February subject to the reservation of the interpretation placed on theresolution." "It is not for the United Nations to require a State to follow oneparticular procedure with regard to the employment of foreign technicians... TheCongo intends to recruit the technicians it requires wherever it thinks fit." This isthe wrong way of putting it. What the United Nations has asked for is theimplementation of the agreement which the Republic of the Congo made with theUnited Nations. And this letter comes from the very authority which has beensupported by some Member States here, a support which has been responsible forthe added strength of these authorities. They state: "The Security Council may notconduct any investigation in the territory of the Republic except with thepreliminary agreement of the Government of the Republic." Apart from thequestion of whether the Security Council can make such claims, this is covered bythe undertaking given by Mr. Kasavubu and Mr. Lumumba, the Heads of theCongolese Republic at that time, when they said that they would carry out theseagreements in good faith, and would allow the United Nations freedom of access

in all that it required. They state: "A decision to convene the Parliament will betaken by the Congolese themselves."

I would like to ask myself and every member of this Assembly: when it is said, "adecision to convene the Parliament will be taken by the Congolese themselves,"who decided to abolish Parliament? It was not the members of the Congolesepeople. The Congolese people, neither in Parliament nor in convention, decidedto deny themselves the privilege of acting as a legislature. The United Nationshas not said that it will convene Parliament. It has said that if there must be somesolution in the Congo, it is necessary that these matters should come beforeParliament. Therefore, since Mr. Kasavubu has the authority to conveneParliament, it would be a good thing if he did so. We are requesting countries likethe United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium and others, who have undoubtedinfluence with Mr. Kasavubu, to try and help the United Nations apart fromhelping Mr. Kasavubu's own country, to carry out the mission of the UnitedNations and to fulfil the purposes of the Charter as applicable to this particularproblem by allowing Parliament to be convened. After all, Parliament was part ofthe arrangement made between Belgium and the Congolese people at that time.As the Commission has pointed out, it is all incorporated in the Loi fondamentale,which is the one thing that remains.

They state: "The Government of the Republic of the Congo" - that is to say, theGovernment of the Republic of the Congo, so far as we are concerned, which hasno legal basis, but is the Government with which we must deal because it isfactual - "energetically protests to all free and sovereign peoples who are Statesmembers of the United Nations against the infringement of the sovereignty of theRepublic." We are ninety-nine nations that adopted these resolutions in August oflast year, and the Security Council which again adopted its resolution in Februaryof this year, and one member State says that we have violated its sovereignty andit appeals to us against an infringement that we have committed. These are thevery people who came to us and said that one State had infringed its sovereigntyand asked us to help them.

They state that the Government of the Republic of the Congo "emphasises that theCongolese people will never permit the implementation or attempt atimplementation of the provisions of this resolution." I would like to ask if theRepublic of the Congo, which is a member State at the present time and which,thanks to the intervention of certain States, has a delegation seated here under theauthority of Mr. Kasavubu, is going to say to us that it will not permit theimplementation of United Nations resolutions, then is this a state of completehostility between one member State and the whole of the United Nations? Therehas been no expression of opinion either in the Conciliation Commission or theAdvisory Committee or here that these resolutions are ultra vires or are unwise,illegal, unjust or anything of that nature. In fact, as I said a while ago, theSecurity Council, in spite of its heterogeneous character, passed this resolution.

Mr. Kasavubu says: "Reaffirms the determination of the Congolese people todefend its sovereignty by all the means at its disposal." That is consummationwhich we all hope for, but whether fratricidal war, the secession of parts of theRepublic or opposition to the rendering of assistance which they themselves haveasked for - not only military assistance but also economic - form part of legitimatesovereignty, is question that this Organisation is entitled to inquire into on thebasis of the agreements and the Charter provisions, and not otherwise. He goeson:

"Appeals to the whole Congolese people in their regional diversity andwith their sense of common Congolese nationality to stand ready at alltimes to carry out any measures for the defence of the Congolesesovereignty."

In the sense of the defence of nationhood, we could all express the samesentiments, but not against the United Nations. I shall not go any further with this,but all this is a direct challenge to the United Nations. What is more, thePresident of the Congolese Republic, in the exercise of his great authority andhaving the control of the radio as he has, tells the country things that are entirelyuntrue:

"Our country is threatened with being placed under United Nationstrusteeship."

"Our Army will be disarmed if we are not vigilant... verbal protests are notenough, action is required..."

That is a threat of physical war against the United Nations.

"The United Nations is betraying us..."

That is hardly the right thing to say about the United Nations after the sacrificesthat many Member States have made in order to bring about peace.

“The Government has decided to mobilise all the resources of the nation...Faced with the threat of United Nations trusteeship. I am giving everyunit and every soldier three commands. Defend the sovereignty andhonour of the Congo, defend the honour of the Army and let every soldierdefend his weapon... Let the leopard, symbol of the Congo, show hisclaws, make his mighty voice resound and leap forward towards the foe."

The foe is in Katanga. The foe is in foreign intervention. The foe is in pestilenceand famine. The foe is in the challenge that is made to the United Nations. Thefoe is not in the United Nations itself.

Here we have a Head of State who has been ushered in here with the assistance -

and, I believe, the well-meant assistance - of very responsible members. We hopethat their undoubted influence, their desire to establish peace in the world andbring about a termination of this state of affairs and their realisation that aprojection of the "cold war" into the continent of Africa would not do anybodyany good, all those things will combine in order to change this attitude on the partof the President of the Republic.

HERE WE COME TO OUR OWN POSITION. I have said very little aboutMatadi because I understand from the Secretary-General that various negotiationsare in progress whereby the use of the port of Matadi will be available to UnitedNations in accordance with the agreement. So far as I understand, there has beenno question of the United Nations wishing to become an army of occupation oranything of that character. From 5 March until 28 March the Secretary-General orhis representatives have sent various messages to Mr. Kasavubu, to Mr. Bombokoand to other people repeatedly asking, not for the evacuation of Matadi but thatthe presence of the United Nations Force in Matadi might be allowed. This is avital condition for the carrying out of the United Nations operation for in theCongo, especially for the prevention of civil war and the halting of militaryoperations, for which the Security Council resolution of 21 February authorisesthe use of force, if necessary, in the last resort. It is again my firm expectationthat, if the situation in Matadi should not be redressed, the matter will, of course,become the urgent concern of the Security Council.

I should like to submit that it is the view of my Government that if, in spite of allthe negotiations and all the goodwill that is shown by the United Nationsauthorities and all the attempts at conciliation, it is not possible for this resolutionto be carried out, then the Secretary-General has the responsibility to place thesituation squarely before the Security Council and ask for further instructions,because those of us who have troops in the region cannot be placed in a positionwhere their logistics are adversely affected and where their morale is affected insuch a way that any future call by the United Nations for the support of thesecountries would not produce the same responses. However, in certain letters theCongolese authorities have said that they had no objection to the presence of theUnited Nations Force in Matadi, but then they go on to say that unless certainapologies are made about the way things are done this will not be allowed. I amanxious not to rub this in very much, because I understand from the Secretary-General that delicate negotiations are going on, and if in any way results can beobtained we should not like to say anything that would create a difficult situation.

BEFORE I LEAVE THIS ROSTRUM, I HAVE THE DIFFICULT TASK ofsaying something with regard to the presence of Indian troops. It has been amatter of great grief, not only to our Government but to our people, that thedispatch of Indian troops to the Congo, while I do not think it has beenmisunderstood by anybody, has been misrepresented, and misrepresented very

deliberately, both in Africa and elsewhere, by interested sections. We are happy tothink that the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, ourneighbours and other countries have communicated to us their appreciation of ourresponse to the call for placing armed forces at the disposal of the United Nationsfor the furtherance of the purposes of the Charter; but we are unhappy to thinkthat, while we recognise the presence of a free press in these countries, things likethis appear in important newspapers:

"The central issue is no longer the Belgians, employed by all leaders astechnicians and advisers, but rather the United Nations representative, Mr.Dayal of India, and now the arrival of Indian troops. It is no reassurancethat Prime Minister Nehru, in his concept of an international police force,makes their support dependent on their being ‘utilised as we intend themto be.’"

I want to say that this is an entire travesty of the facts. The Government of Indiadoes not interfere with the functions, the discretion, the movements or anything ofthat kind, of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. He happens tobe an Indian national, in the same way as Mr. Hammarskjold is, I believe, still aSwedish national... The same newspaper also states the following:

"Congolese leaders have protested against the arrival of the Indian forceson two counts."

Of course, naturally, every anarchic force will protest against the appearance ofthe arm of law and order. Indian forces do not go there as Indian forces. Oncethey leave our shores, once we have placed them at the disposal of the Secretary-General, they are part of the international force of the world. Like the personnel ofthe Indian Army on the very ticklish boundary line between Israel and the UnitedArab Republic, they are not personnel or officers of the Indian Army when theyare functioning there. It is my responsibility to say that they have been placed atthe disposal of the United Nations to carry out the orders of the United NationsCommand. But we have naturally imposed certain conditions in the sense that wedo not wish our troops to be engaged in any conflict with member States as suchor to be used for the suppression of any popular movements or things of thatcharacter. These are legitimate conditions which the United Nations hasaccepted... The newspaper continued:

"Second, the hostility between the Congolese leaders and RajeshwarDayal, the Indian who is head of the United Nations mission here, hasbeen transferred to the Indian troops. Leaders of the Congolese CentralGovernment suspect India of supporting the rival regime of AntoineGizenga in Stanleyville..."

My Government does not recognise any of these governments in the Congo. Theyrecognise Mr. Kasavubu as the elected President of the Republic. As I said, we do

not recognise the way he has functioned. We have not recognised any of thesegovernments. If they are popular movements our forces are not likely to be usedin their suppression. It is not only an unfactual statement; I think it is rathermalicious for people who ought to know better than to say this sort of thing. I amhappy to think that the Governments of these countries, those statesmen, myPrime Minister and others who are interested, who are concerned, are in dailycontact.

We are entirely satisfied that this does not represent the view of the AmericanGovernment or the American people, but at the same time we are entitled to askthe United States delegation to make it clear to the world that these are individualopinions that must come in the conduct of what is called "the freedom of thePress," which I suppose means freedom for the owner of the Press.

Then it goes on to say in another paper, "The dispatch here of Prime MinisterNehru’s Indian troops" - Prime Minister Nehru has no troops. He is a PrimeMinister of a democratic country - "is an example of an action taken by the UnitedNations in defiance of the publicly expressed opposition of President Kasavubuand every one of his Ministers." No responsible expression of opinion can meanthat the United Nations must carry out the behest of one member State and not ofthe Secretary Council. "The Congolese object for the simple reason that theybelieve that India, being allied to left-leaning Ghana, this country’s bitter enemy,simply is not neutral". It is very odd. Until very recently these papers accusedIndia of being neutral; now they say we are not neutral.

The same paper goes on to say:

"Mr. Kasavubu personally made known his Government’s objection to theIndian forces - the Congolese call their arrival an ‘invasion’ - during a

courtesy call paid to him by Mr. Abbas.59

"It was noted that the United Nations, in tacit recognition of the explosivesituation, has been in no hurry to reveal where the Indian troops are to bestationed."

Anybody who knows anything about army movements knows they are notpublished in the newspapers.

"For the moment they are to be concentrated in a camp...

"The airlift of Indian troops, the vanguard of a veritable army of 4,700 isdoubly troublesome to the Kasavubu regime, whose protests were made inthe name of the entire confederation..."

59 Mekki Abbas, Special Representative of the Secretary-General

Here I want to say it is not my business, because it is not a United Nationsarrangement. This airlift has been made possible by the good offices of theUnited States Government, and it is surprising, therefore, that there should be thisexpression of opinion on the character of the allegedly responsible quarters.

Even more than all this are matters, small as they may seem to some of you - butthere have been reference to the Gurkha troops that are in the Congo, in terms thatare entirely uncomplimentary for the very gallant band of people who have manywar honours to their credit, who have served the cause of freedom in two wars,even though they are a comparatively backward illiterate people coming from acountry like ours; to dub them as mercenaries from the Government of India is, Ithink, a gross libel. They are citizens of our country. They are honoured men andofficers of the Indian Army, and it is up to me to repudiate this libel. So far as theIndian troops are concerned, we have placed them at the disposal of the UnitedNations, and their movements and use will be regulated by the command of theSecretary-General, as such, under the terms of the agreement that has beenreached.

In the midst of all this comes the news of yesterday, where, whatever may be saidby any other faction, there can be no question that Mr. Tshombe of Katanga in noway comes under any kind of definition of the principles and purposes set forth inthe Charter. He is a secessionist who wants to break up the integrity of the Congoto the support of which the United Nations is pledged, and what is more, Mr.Kasavubu proclaims he will defend the sovereignty of the Congo. Therefore, thissecessionist movement led by mercenaries from outside with the assistance oflarge numbers of Belgian officers, cannot be permitted, in the opinion of myGovernment, under the terms of the United Nations resolutions.

It is not for us to say from this rostrum what action, how and when it will betaken. We have no desire to introduce into this any prestige line of any character,but if any part of the Congo were to break away, even if it were permitted, and theUnited Nations forces are to be carried along in this manner, then the wholeauthority of the United Nations and of the Charter is called into question. It is oursubmission that the way of dealing with this in the hope of avoiding violence isthe way which is highly commendable. We would not want force to be usedunless the troops are forced to do so, but no army in the world is going to sit idlewhen it is being attacked by regular forces.

I submit that all those who have been endowed with authority in this matter,irrespective of what might be said, if it is not possible to carry out the resolutionof 21 February within a responsible time - the crux of which is the withdrawal ofthe Belgian forces - then this organisation should rightfully expect the matter tocome before the Security Council with categorical requests for direction, so weknow where we stand.

FOR THOSE REASONS MY COUNTRY, ALONG WITH FOURTEEN ORFIFTEEN OTHERS, has submitted a draft resolution [A/L.339]. The operativepart of it states:

"1. Calls upon the Government of Belgian to accept its responsibilities asa member of the United Nations and a comply fully and promptly with thewill of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

"2. Decides that all Belgian and other foreign military and paramilitarypersonnel and political advisers not under United Nations Command, andmercenaries, shall be completely withdrawn and evacuated within a periodnot exceeding twenty-one days, failing which necessary action should betaken in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;"

My own Government did not want a long time-limit to be put on the withdrawalbecause the situation has been going on for seven or eight months. The view ofour Government was to request the evacuation forthwith, but many people whoare wiser than we disagreed - and we accepted their wisdom and agreed to thisperiod being put down; but if the general wish of the Assembly is that thewithdrawal be forthwith, we shall be willing to accept that, it being understoodthat the period may be curtailed, not extended.

The draft resolution also "calls upon all States to exert their influence and extendtheir co-operation." That is to say, we are concerned, as having responded to thecall made by the United Nations, which other people also have done, and we areglad to see that some of the other countries which have withdrawn their troops arethinking of sending them back. We hope that without military action, by goodsense on the part of all concerned, the response of Belgium, which is one of thefounding Members of the United Nations, which as I said a while ago, twice in ahalf century has seen its own mother territory torn by aggression, will come to therescue of all of us by the voluntary action of complete withdrawal, because anyexcuse, any argument that these are not official soldiers, either by the Union ofSouth Africa or by Belgium or by the Rhodesian authorities - these will not satisfythe public opinion of the world...

MY COUNTRY AND MY GOVERNMENT FEEL VERY STRONGLY thatthe continuance of the trouble in the Congo will only lead to greater and greatermisery and hardship for the Congolese people.

We have no desire to intrude in any way into their affairs. with regard to thecalumny that has sometimes been uttered in various countries, and which has beenrepeated by others, that the Government of India or the Indian people have anulterior purpose in going to Africa, it is quite true that we have a large population,but we have lived in India for six or seven thousand years. And when we havegone somewhere, we have gone not as colonisers but for the purpose of adding to

the labour force through our powerful people, or otherwise. Therefore, it is notnecessary for me to make any kind of confession of faith in saying that we haveno ulterior motives in this matter.

We were glad to be able to respond to the resolution adopted by the SecurityCouncil on February 21, 1961, and moved by our sister countries - Ceylon,Liberia and the United Arab Republic - in which certain responsibilities wereplaced upon members. We think it is the equal responsibility of all members tocontribute according to their strength and capacity and their understanding of thesituation. We have no doubt that, by virtue of the support of the permanentmembers of the Council for the resolution, an understanding of the policy willlead from now on to greater efforts to obtain the withdrawal of the Belgian andother foreign forces from this area.

There are large numbers of mercenaries there from the Union of South Africa andneighbouring territories, such as Rhodesia, which are really anarchic forces, andwhich, even when a solution is found, will be disturbing factors in Africa. Inview of the policies followed in their own countries and in relation to theirterritories - for example, South West Africa - I am certain that the other Africancountries are quite awake as to what is happening in this regard.

We submit these draft resolutions to the verdict of the Assembly. we have nodoubt that, while full discussion is required, unanimous support will be given tothem through the good offices of the powerful countries which are members ofthe North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which countries have been responsible forassisting Mr. Kasavubu in gaining a certain amount of prestige in his country,and that these powerful countries, which desire peace more than anything else andknow the consequences of the threat to international peace and securitysurrounding this problem, will use their wisdom and their unquestioned influenceto bring about the consummation of these draft resolutions.

AGGRESSION AGAINST EGYPT BY FRANCE, THE UNITED KINGDOMAND ISRAEL IN 1956

[On October 29, 1956, the armed forces of Israel invaded Egyptian territory. Thenext day, the United Kingdom and France sent an ultimatum demanding thatEgypt and Israel stop warlike action and withdraw their military forces ten milesfrom the Suez Canal, that is, deep inside Egyptian territory. On 31 October,French and British aircraft began air attacks on targets in Egypt, and Egyptblocked the Suez Canal by sinking ships in the Canal. By 5 November, Israeloccupied the whole of the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza, part of Palestine underEgyptian administration. On the same day, British and French forces landed atthe northern entrance to the Suez Canal and occupied Port Said and Port Fuad.The Indian Government played an active role, during this crisis, in diplomaticefforts for the termination of aggression against Egypt in 1956-57.

The United Nations Security Council began consideration of the situation on 30October, but could not take action since Britain and France vetoed two draftresolutions, proposed by the United States and the Soviet Union respectively, fora cease-fire and withdrawal of forces behind the Armistice Line established by theEgypt-Israel Armistice Agreement of 1949. On a decision by the Security Council,an emergency special session of the General Assembly was then convened on 1November.

On 2 November, on the proposal of the United States, the Assembly adoptedresolution 997 (ES-I) calling for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal offorces behind the Armistice Line. Egypt accepted the resolution but Israel agreedonly to a cease-fire but not to withdrawal from Egyptian territory.

On 4 November, the Assembly adopted resolution 998 (ES-I), proposed byCanada, requesting the Secretary-General to submit a plan for setting up aninternational emergency force to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities.It also adopted resolution 999 (ES-I), proposed by India and 18 other Asian-African countries, reaffirming resolution 997 and calling on the parties to complywith it immediately. The next day, the Assembly adopted another resolution - 1000(ES-I) - authorising the Secretary-General to set up a United Nations Commandfor the international force.]


[On November 7, 1956, the General Assembly discussed the situation created by

60 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, First Emergency Special Session, PlenaryMeetings, pages 115-19

the triple aggression, and adopted two resolutions. By resolution 1001 (ES-I),proposed by Argentina, Ceylon and five other countries, it approved the report ofthe Secretary-General on the United Nations Emergency Force, authorised theorganisation of the Force, and established an Advisory Committee to advise theSecretary-General. By resolution 1002 (ES-I), adopted on the proposal of Indiaand 18 other Asian-African countries, it called on Israel immediately to withdrawits forces behind the Armistice Line, and called upon the United Kingdom andFrance to withdraw their forces from Egyptian territory.

In this speech on the two resolutions, Mr. Menon informed the Assembly thatIndia had agreed to participate in the emergency force on certain conditionsaccepted by the Secretary-General.]

We are gathered here at this meeting of the emergency session of the GeneralAssembly for two purposes: (1) to consider the report of the Secretary-General inpursuance of General Assembly resolution 998 (Es-I) [A/3302] and (2) toconsider the 19-Power draft resolution [A/3309] submitted at the 566th meeting.

Before addressing myself to these two specific topics, I want to say, on behalf ofmy delegation, that at this stage when we hope we are entering into a phase wherecollective responsibility and the collective will of the world are being brought tobear on the question for beneficent ends, it is desirable to look back only to theextent essential for the consideration of this problem. We have come to the stagewhen we must look forward and apply ourselves to the various aspects of thisquestion. My Government desires me to state before the General Assembly -because I have just come from India - its general reaction and attitude toward thepresent difficulties.

Our country, our people and our Government, indeed our whole part of the world,have been shocked by the developments that have taken place in relation to Egypt.We desire to state without any superlatives that we regard the action of Israel asan invasion of Egyptian territory, and the introduction of the forces of the UnitedKingdom and France as an aggression without any qualification. We have saidthis from the very beginning.

We received this news not only with a sense of shock but also with a great deal ofsadness. I say "with a great deal of sadness" for two reasons, first because of thegreat physical harm that is being inflicted upon the people of Egypt, and secondlybecause those engaged in a part of this aggression, namely the France-Britishalliance, are countries and peoples with whom we have very close kinship. Thatis particularly so in the case of the United Kingdom. It is therefore more insorrow than in anger that we approach this problem. During the last severalweeks of great anxiety, we have tried to exercise our influence by way ofpersuasion to change the course of these developments.

I think that I should leave this aspect at this stage, stating the minimum that isrequired. Later I shall point out why it is necessary to refer to it. I shall comenow to the first of the draft resolutions, namely the 19-Power draft.

THERE IS VERY LITTLE THAT ONE NEED SAY ABOUT THIS DRAFT,except that it is very largely a reiteration of previous resolutions. It was submittedbecause previous resolutions have not been complied with. However, there arecertain new factors, namely, that the call for a cease-fire and for the withdrawal offoreign forces from Egyptian soil has been partly complied with by thosecountries that are now engaged in the invasion of Egypt. The United Kingdomand France, and Egypt, effected a cease-fire, according to all reports, at 7 p.m.(New York time) yesterday. However, there have been expressions of view in theAssembly that the fighting was continuing. Let us assume, for our purpose, thatthe cease-fire has been effected and that a beginning has been made in regard tothe observance of the General Assembly’s resolutions.

Two other factors remain, however. One concerns the statement in operativeparagraph 2 of that draft, in which Israel is once again called upon to withdrawimmediately all its forces behind the armistice lines established by the ArmisticeAgreement of February 24, 1949. I think that the Assembly will appreciate theimportance, not only of reiterating this request, but of taking it very seriously andof going along with the Secretary-General in the observations which he has justmade.

Repeated calls have been made to Israel to withdraw its invading armies from theterritory of Egypt, which are there in violation of the Armistice Agreement, inviolation of the provisions of the Charter and in violation of all known standardsof international conduct. The problems which we are subsequently going toconsider, indeed the problem of terminating the conflict and attempting to find thebeginning of a solution of the basic problems there, are only possible within thecontext of this withdrawal.

This particular matter is not a question of how much or how little can be done orof whether it can be done in one day or in two days; the withdrawal of Israelforces to their own frontiers as established by the Armistice Agreement isfundamental to any settlement.

I am sure that the Assembly is perturbed, as was my delegation, at the recentofficial statements made by the Government of Israel, statements which have beencriticised even by the other two Powers that are now engaged in operations inEgypt. The Prime Minister of Israel has stated that there will be no withdrawalfrom the advanced positions occupied. However, there has been a communicationto the Secretary-General in regard to the cease-fire. That is one of the reasonswhy this draft resolution has become necessary.

My delegation is heartened by the statement just made by the Secretary-General,in which he expressed, I am sure, the will and the views of practically the entirerepresentation of this Assembly, namely, that if this request is not complied with,then the Assembly must turn, at once, to the other provisions and remedies thatare open to it under the provisions of the Charter.

Operative paragraph 3 of the draft calls upon the United Kingdom and Franceonce again immediately to withdraw all their forces from Egyptian territory.Perhaps I am not quite correct about this, but there seems to be a technicalinaccuracy here, because when we first called upon the United Kingdom andFrance it was in regard to the introduction of forces into the territory of Egypt. Atthat time the landings had not taken place. However, the landings took placesubsequently and the territory of Egypt was occupied. Now there has been acease-fire, but the cease-fire is only a beginning and only a part of the requestmade by the General Assembly. It must be followed by the withdrawal of allforces.

Every practical person will realise that the word "immediately" in a politicalresolution cannot be interpreted in the sense of instant action, because troops haveto be moved. What this draft resolution seeks to do is to express the view of itssponsors that it is not possible to think in terms of these Franco-British forcesremaining on Egyptian territory contingent upon some other element. It isnecessary to state this, because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom hasrepeatedly said that these forces would so remain. But the history of Egypt is oneof occupation by various invading troops throughout the past, even though theysometimes came after stating that it was only for temporary purposes.

Operative paragraph 3, therefore, should not present any difficulties to those whoagree with the general idea that the aggressive forces must be evacuated. That iswhat it calls for. Therefore, the removal of these troops must begin forthwith andits termination must take place without delay. That is the meaning of this clause.My delegation is not prepared to set an hour by the clock when this should bedone, but the substance of the paragraph is entirely clear.

With great respect, I should now like to make some observations in connectionwith paragraph 3 which have become necessary as a result of the observationsmade by the representatives of the United Kingdom and France. They are entirelyfree to place their own interpretations on these questions, but as far as mydelegation is concerned and as far as we understand the substance and purpose ofthis draft resolution and the report before us, we do not believe that the partieswhich have committed aggression can lay down the conditions under which theyare willing to withdraw. The United Nations has requested them to withdraw aspart of the termination of that aggression.

We cannot accept the position that the invading forces lay down the conditions,ostensibly in the interest of the invaded party. If we do that, we put ourselves in

the position of justifying the invasion itself. And that is a position which myGovernment is not ready to accept. We are quite prepared to appreciate that thereare practical problems involved. Therefore, any reasonable space of time that isrequired for the physical removal of troops is something that one can understand.But we cannot accept the view that the pursuit of some purposes with which wecan be in agreement or which are in conformity with the Charter necessitatesthese forces remaining on Egyptian soil.

With those explanations, I would like to commend this draft resolution to theacceptance of the Assembly and I hope that it will be possible for the UnitedKingdom and France, which have expressed doubts about it, and for those whohave supported them in their positions, to accept this draft so that it can goforward unanimously, and that at this stage, therefore, the aggression would beterminated by common consent.

THEN I PROCEED TO THE SECOND DRAFT RESOLUTION, that submittedby Argentina and six other countries [A/3308] and introduced by therepresentative of Ceylon at the previous meeting. But before I speak about thatresolution, I would like to make a statement relative to the second report whichthe Secretary-General has placed before the Assembly. I should like to join allthe speakers before me on this rostrum in paying my tribute to the hard work, thediligence and thoroughness which has entered into the preparation of this report,and I am sure that I am not exaggerating when I say that the Assembly and theworld owe a debt of gratitude to the Secretary-General for applying himself sodiligently to this problem.

Since we are now embarking on a very serious phase of activity on behalf of theUnited Nations, and since those countries that would be contributing troops or inother ways contributing to the maintenance of the international police force wouldbe taking on responsibilities, it is essential that clarification should be sought andmade and interpretations given.

I am directed by my Government to deal with this matter in that way. Two orthree days ago, when this question was discussed between the Secretary-Generaland our Government, he very kindly gave us his view of the context andconditions in which any participation of countries in the international UnitedNations Force would take place. My delegation has formulated these conditions[A/3302/Add.4/Rev. 1] and further discussed them with the Secretary-General,and we understand that they represent the accurate set of conditions andcircumstances in which such a force would function; and we would like this to beput into the record.

The participation of a member State would be based upon these conditions: first,that the Emergency force would be set up in the context of the withdrawal of theFranco-British forces from Egypt and on the basis of the call to Israel to withdraw

behind the armistice lines; secondly, that that Force would not in any sense be asuccessor to the invading Franco-British forces or would in any sense take over itsfunctions; thirdly that it would be understood that the Force might have tofunction through Egyptian territory and, therefore, that the Egyptian Governmentmust consent to its establishment; fourthly that the Force would be a temporaryone for the emergency. Its purpose is to separate the combatants, namely, Egyptand Israel, with the latter withdrawing as required by the Assembly resolution.The Force must be of a balanced composition. The agreement that we are nowmaking would be one in principle and we would reserve our position with regardto actual participation until the full plan is before us.

I have been instructed by my Government to communicate to the Secretary-General - which I have done - that the Government of India would be willing toparticipate in the United Nations Force contemplated by his report in the contextof the conditions that I stated and would be willing, when the arrangements aremade final and the consent of the Assembly received, to send officersimmediately to enter into consultations with the Secretary-General in regard to thedetails. Of course, when we say "immediately," we are taking into account thefact that communications between India and this country have now beensomewhat interrupted by the damage done to the airfields in the Middle East.

The Government of India has been able to accede to the position that itscontribution would be something on the order of a battalion in strength. I aminstructed to say that transport facilities, including airlift, would have to beprovided through the United Nations, because it is not possible for us to transportthis body of troops and equipment on such short notice without outside assistance.It will be possible to implement such agreement as we may make in a very shortperiod, not more than ten days from the day of agreement, although it may bepossible to send advance bodies beforehand. I have already made thiscommunication to the Secretary-General and it is among the papers that have beencirculated.

I want to draw the attention of the Assembly to the Secretary-General’s reportwhich is contained in document A/3302. My delegation is glad to note that it isspecifically stated in paragraph 4 that the authority of the United NationsCommander would be so defined as to make him fully independent of the policiesof any one nation.

I want also like to draw the attention of the Assembly to another observation bythe Secretary-General in the report, with which my delegation is not only inagreement but which it desires emphasised:

"It may in this context be observed that the Franco-British proposal, towhich I have already referred, may imply that the question of thecomposition of the staff and contingents should be subject to agreement bythe parties involved, which it would be difficult to reconcile with the

development of the international force along the course already beingfollowed by the General Assembly."

The report goes on to say that this Force should be set up on an emergency basis"to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with all theterms" of the General Assembly resolution. The emphasis should be on thewords "all the terms" of the General Assembly resolution. So far we are in clearagreement; we have no difficulties.

Now we come to paragraph 8 of the report and I should like the Assembly tolook at the last two sentences of paragraph 8. Here the difficulty is not perhapsso much one of substance, but in a matter of this kind, in view of the not alwayshappy experience that my Government has had in dealing with similar problemsin Korea and in Indo-China, clarification beforehand is essential in order thatwork may proceed without impediments, and also so that we may not havedifficulties with other participants. Paragraph 8 says the following:

"It follows from its terms of reference that there is no intent in theestablishment of the Force to influence the military balance in the presentconflict and, thereby, the political balance affecting efforts to settle theconflict. By the establishment of the Force, therefore, the GeneralAssembly has not taken a stand in relation to aims other than those clearlyand fully indicated in resolution 997 (ES-I) of 2 November 1956."

I confess I am a little perplexed by this statement. I do not know quite what itsimplications would be. If it means that the United Nations Force is not intendedto support the parties in the aggression or to intervene militarily, then Iunderstand it. But if its meaning is that the occupation forces would remainwhere they are and therefore that their military balance would not be affected,then of course it is totally contrary to its purpose. I draw attention to thisbecause as the statement stands it is a little perplexing.

The Secretary-General will bear with me. We have had difficulties of this kind -I would not say without number, but quite a number - both in Indo-China and inKorea, of a very serious character. My Government would have graveapprehensions in undertaking military obligations which are subject to theinterpretation of foreign office lawyers of different countries afterwards.Therefore, I think that some clarification of this paragraph would greatly relieveour minds.

The Secretary-General has told us that this is the second and final report, but Isuppose that that is only a procedural description, because it goes on to say, inparagraph 11: "However, the general observations which are possible should atthis stage be sufficient." Therefore, my delegation wants to be assured that thereis no finality about this report in the sense that it is a kind of army manual inregard to these forces. There, again, it is not because we want to be punctilious,

but because we have been once bitten, twice bitten, and are three times shy atthe moment.

Again, when we come to paragraph 12, which is the most important part, Ishould like, first, to observe that any interpretation which we make in regard tothe draft resolution when we record our vote ought to be bounded by paragraph12. That is to say, we could not vote on the draft resolution and then go on tothink that we can depart from the essential features of paragraph 12 in theSecretary-General’s report.

I believe that it is permissible to elaborate, in the sense that my delegation hasdone, by reading out the context, as we understand it, which we agreed with theSecretary-General. Therefore, when votes are cast, it should be with the definiteunderstanding that this draft resolution urges, in accordance with the terms ofresolution 997 (ES-I), that "all parties now involved in hostilities in the areaagree to an immediate cease-fire and, as part thereof, halt any movement ofmilitary forces and arms into the area." This was at the time when the landingshad not taken place in Egypt and invasion was only by way of serialbombardment. But now we have a new situation and, therefore, the sense of thatsentence is not merely to halt the movement of military forces but to reverse themovement of military forces and withdraw them. Therefore, I feel sure that theSecretary-General would agree that this is the implication of this paragraph.

Paragraph 12 says further:

"These two provisions combined indicate that the functions of the UnitedNations Force would be, when a cease-fire is being established, to enterEgyptian territory with the consent of the Egyptian Government, in orderto help maintain quiet during and after the withdrawal of non-Egyptiantroops."

"Non-Egyptian troops" now would mean all non-Egyptian troops since, at thetime this resolution was passed, the only non-Egyptian troops in Egypt were theIsrael troops, and, therefore, it must be meant to include the others.

We turn now to a point on which we wish to lay some emphasis. The lastsentence of paragraph 12 reads as follows:

"Its functions can, on this basis, be assumed to cover an area extendingroughly from the Suez Canal to the armistice demarcation lines,established in the Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel."

It must be clearly understood that when we say "an area extending roughly fromthe Suez Canal to the armistice demarcation lines," it is only in the sense thatEgypt will permit the use of its territory by the troops in order to perform theirfunctions, which are to keep the Israel invading armies within their own

frontiers. It cannot in any sense at any time be construed that this Force has anyoccupation function in these areas or will in any way infringe the sovereignty ofEgypt, but only that it has the right of way wherever necessary.

My Government is not only in agreement, but would stand with the CanadianGovernment in the view which it has put forward in a communiqué just nowissued by the Canadian Cabinet, which is referred to in paragraph 14 as follows:"General experience seems to indicate that it is desirable that countriesparticipating in the Force should provide self-contained units in order to avoidthe loss of time and efficiency." We subscribe to that, and that is why, when therequest was made to us in the report on this matter the Government of India,although it has a very small army and has its own commitments, agreed tofurnish troops of a battalion in strength.

Finally, the Secretary-General goes on to say, in paragraph 19, that he is fullyaware of the exploratory character of this plan, which means that all the detailswill have to be worked out.

My delegation will support the draft resolution that has been put forward by thedelegation of Ceylon on its own behalf and on that of six other delegations[A/3308]. We hope that, in agreeing to the decision to set up this internationalpolice force under the supervision of the General Assembly, the Secretary-General will look into all the legal aspects, and if there are any legal loopholes,will seek to close them; even in performing what we think is a useful action, it isessential that we conform to the spirit and letter of the Charter.

THERE ARE TWO OTHER SMALL MATTERS TO WHICH I WISH TOREFER while I am at this rostrum, and those are the two communicationsaddressed to the Secretary-General - one from the United Kingdom [A/3306]and the other from France [A/3307]. I would refer particularly to the latter, point3 of which reads as follows:

"The French Government considers it necessary, in accordance with thesuggestion made to you by Mr. Christian Pineau in his letter of 5November, that a meeting of the Security Council should be called at theministerial level as soon as possible in order to work out the conditions fora final cease-fire and a settlement of the problems of the Middle East."

I regret to say that my delegation is not able to comprehend this paragraph inrelation to what we are doing because, while no one can object to its being avery good thing for the Council to meet at the ministerial level - it was socontemplated in the Charter - the final condition of the cease-fire is theoperation now contemplated by the draft resolution under discussion, and if weare going to send the question from pillar to post without knowing where thedecisions are to be made, I am afraid that the urgency of this matter will not

receive attention, and the whole of the arrangement that we are now trying toestablish will flounder. Therefore, this paragraph - while the FrenchGovernment in its wisdom is no doubt entirely free to communicate what it likesand what it thinks is right - cannot be regarded, I think, as a provision of thecease-fire, and the General Assembly cannot be committed in any way to theidea that the cease-fire arrangements must await a meeting of the SecurityCouncil for settlement. It is exactly because of the Security Council’s inabilityto perform its duties on account of the French veto, that this matter has comebefore the Assembly, and if it is to go back to the Security Council, then otherconditions will have to prevail. It is not in any sense to give expression to arivalry between these two bodies, but to take this matter as it stands today -namely, that a country having been invaded without cause, and the securityprovisions having become inoperative on account of the exercise of the veto -other procedures have been adopted. I should like to say that, in the presentcase, we have an instance of great suffering and tragedy - tragedy in the sensenot only of physical suffering and physical damage, but also of spiritual damagethat has been done to the principles of the United Nations.

As I said in the beginning, the problem before the Assembly is a matter of greatsadness for us because at least one of the parties concerned stands in extremelyclose relations with us, and our country is seriously concerned as to whether itrepresents a reversal of the great processes of human emancipation that havebeen taking place in Asia and Africa during the last half-century, in which theUnited Kingdom has made very significant contributions. It was a heartbreakingthing for us to see that there was a reversal of this process - I do not want to callit by familiar names - which would have meant the imposition of military powerover a weak nation and an attempt to settle disputes by the arbitrament of arms.It has been of brief duration, and we hope that, as soon as this problem is out ofthe way, the General Assembly, including those members which are now notvoting for these draft resolutions, will participate in the attempt to bind up thewounds, both physical and otherwise, that have occurred as a result of presentdevelopments.


[The General Assembly resumed consideration of the situation at its eleventhregular session which opened on 12 November. France, the United Kingdomand Israel announced only token withdrawals of forces and set conditions forfurther withdrawals.


On 24 November, twenty Asian-African countries proposed a draft resolution(A/3385/Rev.1) to note with regret that British, French and Israeli forces hadnot been fully withdrawn and to reiterate the call to the three countries tocomply forthwith with the resolutions of 2 and 7 November.]

I am sure that I express the view, not only of my delegation, but of the entireAssembly, when I say that the Foreign Minister of Belgium is held in highrespect in this Assembly, not only as a former President of the Assembly in itsformative stages, but also as the representative of a country which, twice in ourlifetime, has been the victim of unprovoked aggression...

But I have the duty of looking at this amendment as it stands and as it relates notmerely to the narrow purposes of the draft resolution that stands in our name,jointly with others, but to the purpose that this entire Assembly has in view,namely, that of preventing a conflagration in the Middle East and restoring toEgypt its sovereign rights, which have been violated by the naked aggression ofthe British-French alliance in disregard of the Charter - the Charter has beendisregarded in the same way as treaties were disregarded by the violation of theneutrality of Belgium in days gone by - and also of bringing about a situationwhere other problems, as was indicated by the representative of the UnitedStates this morning, are capable of solution.

If there is any doubt about this, one has only to look at the revised text of thedraft resolution submitted by Afghanistan and nineteen others of us. It was notwithout difficulty, it was not without a great deal of conflict within ourselves,that we agreed to rewrite paragraph 1 of the operative part. We did that largelyto meet the wishes of a large number of delegations of Latin America andEurope which, we thought, would not want us to say anything that could comeinto conflict with what they regard as a tone of moderation. I do not for onemoment admit that the original text was anything but a reiteration of the facts asthey are and a calling for compliance with the mandate of this Assembly...

NOW I COME TO THE TEXT OF THIS AMENDMENT, to which we offerthe most unqualified opposition because its purpose is not to improve the draftresolution but to defeat its purpose by what was well known to Europeancountries in the war, an outflanking movement. While our political experienceis limited and our capacity for probing into these things may be meagre, we areable to see this.

If this amendment is adopted - I am sure that it will not be - and incorporated inthe draft resolution, then the draft resolution will become a mockery of its oldform. It reverses its purpose, and the only alternative then left to us is either towithdraw the whole of the draft resolution or, if the Assembly will not permit itswithdrawal, to vote against it. And if we have to vote against it, then the

passage of the other draft resolutions becomes difficult because, unless there is awithdrawal of troops, or at least an urging of the withdrawal of troops, it is notright to consider other questions.

The representative of Belgium tells us that the draft resolution submitted by mycountry and others does not take into account the position of the United NationsEmergency Force. I admit that that would be so if this document stood alone;but we are considering this afternoon both this document and the six-Power draftresolution [A/3386]. Not only have we addressed ourselves to this question ofthe United Nations Emergency Force, but the six-Power draft resolution, whichis in two parts - one is entirely and fundamentally concerned with the Force, andstates : "Notes with approval the contents of the aide-memoire on the basis forthe presence and functioning of the United Nations Emergency force in Egypt,as annexed to the report of the Secretary-General" - has taken into account thewhole report of the Secretary-General, which includes all the discussions thathave gone on between him, the Egyptian Government, and various othersconcerned; in fact, the whole gamut of the subject.

It is not necessary that the relevant subject should be all in one paper; it is allpart of one position, and therefore I want to tell the Assembly that if there is anysuspicion, any fear or feeling in the mind of the mover of this amendment thatwe are forgetting the United Nations Emergency Force, and that there is noreference to that in this draft resolution, that may be textually correct, but it isnot in substance correct. In substance, the position is rather the reverse.

Then we are told that it must be an expression agreeable to both parties. I askthe representative of Belgium in all conscience whether it is right today to askfor an expression agreeable to both parties unless one of the parties concerned,namely, those who have troops in the invaded country, come here and declaretheir determination, not to make amends - that will come later - but to vacate theaggression without qualifications. I wish, through the President, to ask both therepresentatives of the United Kingdom and France whether there is onestatement they have made, whether they have expressed one sentiment in thisAssembly, in which they have said, "We will vacate." Every promise, everydeclaration they have made is contingent upon something. My country and myGovernment refuse to acknowledge the right of the aggressor to lay downconditions for vacating.

It gives me no pleasure - on the contrary, it gives us much pain - to take up thisposition in regard to the United Kingdom, but they leave us no option. Timeafter time the Foreign Ministers have come forward and said, "we will move outwhen you do this and when you do that." That is not the language of a personwho has committed the crime of aggression upon a people that had given noprovocation in this respect.

Therefore we cannot accept this position that there must be an expression

agreeable to both parties. There is only one way of getting an expressionagreeable to both parties: that is for the United Kingdom, France and Israel toagree to this draft resolution - then they will have proclaimed that they havereversed the course they have taken in defying the Charter.

ONLY TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AGO, the representative of the UnitedKingdom, standing on this platform, told the United Nations that it hadneglected its duty - and these are two out of the four functioning permanentmembers of the Security Council. They told us that we had neglected our duty,that we had failed to protect the rights of the world, and therefore it was given toone nation to police a country. I do not see any provision in the Charterindicating that it is given to one nation to use armed might in the defence of anyprinciples that are embodied in the Charter.

The Charter makes provision for defence in case of attack. Egypt had that right.Neither the United Kingdom nor France had the right to use arms against Egypt,because they were not attacked. There is nothing in the Charter, there is nothingin any moral principles or international law and practice which places upon anycountry, however, great, however, mighty, however steeped in the traditions ofdomination by force, the justification today for walking into another country andsaying, "we shall make you keep the law." That is the function of theinternational community, and there is no right to appropriate this for oneself.That is the height of national egoism.

Mr. Spaak, for whom I have great personal respect, asks us to mediate to helpsolve these problems. I plead, with humility, that that injunction does not applyto my nation or my Government. We have given a great deal of thought to thesethings. In the last several months, a great deal of our effort has gone intopleading, into requesting, into using our good offices, into doing everything wecould with the parties concerned in view of our connections and in view of themany common bonds of friendship that hold us together. Nothing that hashappened in Egypt will wipe away the relations which exist between us and theUnited Kingdom; that is to be treated separately. Therefore, we have meditatedon these questions, we have given thought to these questions. Governments likemine and others, even this morning, have gone through, as I say, a great deal ofmental conflict in trying to agree to a form of words that the great majority ofthis Assembly can without hesitancy accept.

I am prepared to understand that one delegation or group of delegations wouldbe more exercised by one question than by another. It is only natural that thisshould be so, and we have taken that into consideration. In history, our parts ofthe world, the parts of the world inhabited by non-European countries, havebeen the happy hunting ground for other peoples, both for economic exploitationand for military conquests. Therefore it has almost become part of the racialmemory of men to regard these aggressions as though they were less sinful, less

criminal, less against the Charter of the United Nations, than any other. But weare prepared as practical persons to take these things into account. It is quitenatural for people to feel more aggrieved, more hurt, more moved by troubles,by invasions, by transgressions of one kind of another, nearer to themselves,than when they are far off. But the resolutions of the United Nations stand; itsdemands stand.

THEN WE ARE TOLD BOTH BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ISRAELAND BY THE OTHERS that this draft resolution does not correspond to thefacts. The one possible argument, the argument that on the face of it has somevalue, that the mover of this amendment put before the Assembly, was that sincethis draft resolution had been placed before the Assembly, there had beencommunications by the Government of Israel.

Secondly, the representative of Israel said that what had been said here - thataccording to communications received by the Secretary-General no Israel forceshad been withdrawn - was not accurate. I must confess that there is somethingin the way of a hair-splitting correctness in it, but I would ask you to read thetext. When you read the text, what do you find? You find that the Secretary-General asks the Israelis to withdraw. The communication from theGovernment of Israel does not say that they have withdrawn. Therefore, is it awrong interference to say in substance that no Israel forces have beenwithdrawn? Are we to understand that the Government of Israel would hide itslight under a bushel and say, "We have withdrawn but we do not want to tellyou?" After all, we are all men of average intelligence. It is not understandableat all to me how an argument of this kind can be brought forward, but we shallleave it at that...

...we have here a document which, I believe, came into our hands at about 3 p.m.and one which came in a little before that. What do they say? They say:

"The question has been asked whether these withdrawals" - that is,withdrawals of Israel forces - "include any substantial movements of Israelforces out of Egyptian territory back to the Israel side of the Egypt-Israelfrontier." [A/3389].

Those are not the questions asked by the Secretary-General, and I make bold tosay that without referring to the text, because the Secretary-General has to go bythe decisions of the Assembly. The Assembly asked for a withdrawal behind thearmistice lines. I challenge anybody to point out any statement by theGovernment of Israel, either written or oral, to the Assembly, that any Israeltroops have been withdrawn behind the armistice lines. Assuming that this iscorrect - and I am prepared to assume that it is - there is a distinction betweenwithdrawal from Egyptian territory and withdrawal behind the armistice lines,and it is a distinction of very great political importance, especially in view of

what is going on in the Gaza Strip at the moment.

Therefore, to say that this puts the wording of our draft resolution out of court isnot to understand the facts of the situation. We said, "No Israel forces have beenwithdrawn behind the armistice lines." I would ask the Assembly whether anyrepresentative has heard anyone speak on behalf of Israel and say that forceshave been withdrawn behind the armistice lines. If that is so, as far as we areconcerned, we are prepared to alter that sentence, but I have not heard anystatement of that kind. We regard the withdrawal behind the armistice lines as avital matter.

Therefore there is nothing in these criticisms, and the operative paragraph asamended and included in the revised text is a moderate and considered statementof the situation.

WE WERE HAPPY TO HAVE THE SUPPORT of the representative of theUnited States this morning, although he said he did not regard this draftresolution as necessary. I am quite prepared to concede that it may not benecessary if withdrawals are taking place; and we are equally entitled to ourdifferent anticipations of how much encouragement - I do not want to use theword "prodding" - is required.

But then I read the text of the French reply and of the British reply. What doesthe British reply say? Mr. Lloyd came here and told us that his Government waswithdrawing one battalion - and, as always, I take his word for it. But I now askthe Assembly to look at annex III to the Secretary-General’s report oncompliance with the Assembly’s resolution [A/3384]. In paragraph 1, Mr.Lloyd says: "No significant withdrawal has yet taken place."

It might be said that that was the decision to withdraw the battalion. But I readin paragraph 4: "Nevertheless, the United Kingdom Government, as anindication of its intentions, has decided to withdraw at once an infantry battalionfrom Port Said."

That was written on 21 November. Presumably the decision was taken on the20th. Today is the 24th - and it is announced this afternoon that one battalionhas been withdrawn. Some people may not agree with me when I say that, but Iam thankful for small mercies. But the fact remains that this Assembly has beenin session, the Secretary-General has been urging withdrawal, we have beentalking about withdrawal - and is there anyone here who does not say that thathas been a factor in promoting this withdrawal?

The letter of 21 November from Mr. Lloyd to the Secretary-General said thatthere had been no substantial withdrawal - and that was written in the context ofthe decision to withdraw one battalion. Therefore the United Kingdom

Government admits that the withdrawal of one battalion is not a substantialwithdrawal. It is quite logical: they say that there has been no substantialwithdrawal, that they propose to withdraw one battalion - and now they havewithdrawn it, so even that withdrawal is not a substantial withdrawal.

There is another aspect that disturbs us. In his second communication[A/3389/Add.1], the representative of Israel says that two infantry brigades havebeen withdrawn. The French reply to the Secretary-General [A/3384, annex 1] -it is in language that requires a great deal of consideration - reads:"Approximately one-third of the French forces which were deployed on 7November has been withdrawn." Withdrawn to where? Withdrawn from theplace of deployment. Are they still on Egyptian territory? Are they on the openseas? Are they on French territory? That is not indicated in this document.

But, over and above that, when the French Government tells us that one-thirdhas been withdrawn, when the Israel Government tells us that two brigades havebeen withdrawn, and when the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom tells usthat one battalion has been withdrawn, the only sensible way of looking at it isto ask: what proportion do these withdrawals bear to the total of the forces onEgyptian soil? We have not been let in on that secret; we do not know the sizeof the forces in those places. Unless we know the proportion these withdrawalsbear to the total size of the forces, these documents lose their value as evidenceof substantial withdrawals.

My delegation therefore has no option - regretting as it does any opposition onthe part of the representative of Belgium - but to request and plead with thisAssembly that it reject the Belgian amendment. The amendment does notperform the purpose for which the representative of Belgium drafted it - in orderto produce an agreed text which might be a step towards the further solution ofthe problem. It does not represent the facts as they are today, because theoriginal resolutions were for immediate withdrawal. I was one of those whostood up here [567th meeting] and said that "immediate" could not mean"instantaneous." But I must confess that by "immediate" I did not mean a lapseof three weeks. That is not immediate; that represents a process ofprocrastination. And, with the simplicity of my mind, I have not been able tounderstand why it takes longer for an army to come out than it takes for it to goin.

I WANT TO STATE CATEGORICALLY, HERE AND NOW, that I desire theSecretary-General, on behalf of my Government, to be reminded of thestatement made by my delegation when agreeing to participation in theEmergency Force, to which I shall refer when the main debate comes - thestatement as to the conditions and the context in which these forces were beingformed and used. We said that in no circumstances should we agree at any timeto take over from the invading forces. That would be to justify aggression. We

are not prepared at any time, even by an act of acquiescence, to condone theinvasion of Egypt. Therefore the invading countries, France and the UnitedKingdom, have no right to tell us: "We will decide, when your forces come in,whether they are big enough and whether they can take over."

Not only are they challenging the position of these forces of the United Nations;they are taking upon themselves decisions that rest with the Assembly. It is upto the Assembly to decide what forces should be sent and what forces should notbe sent, and under what conditions. What right has anybody else to say, "Weshall decide whether you can do the job we have been doing?" I hope we do notdo the job they have been doing.

In no circumstances, then, will my Government subscribe to that proposition,and I want the Secretary-General to make that clear beyond any doubt - becausethat would be a breach of faith with my Parliament, with my Government.Indian troops were on Egyptian soil in past years as part of an invading army. Itis a memory we want to forget. If they are to go there again, they must go as apeace force, and in no sense must they be associated with invasion...

This is a good time to say that my delegation and those associated with us, andeven others whose names do not appear on this draft resolution, came to therostrum this morning and asked that these draft resolutions be put to the votetoday, not because we wanted to stifle discussion - it is not to our interest tostifle discussions, because it is not we that have anything to hide - but becausewe wanted the Secretary-General to be able to use the weekend for the purposesmentioned in the other two draft resolutions, and we wanted to give the UnitedKingdom and France the opportunity to come here after the weekend recess andto be able to say that they had made greater progress, so that further resolutionsof this kind would not be necessary and this would be a forgotten phase. It wasfor those reasons that we came here this morning and asked that these draftresolutions be passed, so that the Secretary-General and his staff could get onwith their work and so that the Egyptian people would find some release fromthe tensions caused by an occupying army.

There are representatives of many countries in this room who have recollections- past, present, remote - of the presence of occupying armies in their countries.We should like to see an early evacuation of the Egyptian ports and the transferof administration to the Egyptian people. It is galling to think that a member ofthe United Nations should have a part of its country administered by a foreignPower. That is what we have in mind when people ask us to take things slowly.

There are the qualifications that the United Kingdom makes: that it is itsintention - only its intention, not what it is doing - as quickly as possible to takecertain action in regard to part of its force, and immediately to consider whatnext can be done, and so on. There are so many qualifications here that we donot know whether this really means withdrawal. I have no doubt at all that the

United Kingdom Government, by its declaration that it intends to withdraw,means to withdraw. But it is fenced about with very many conditions - andthose are not conditions which are either agreed to by the United Nations or canbe agreed to under the terms of the Charter.

The Charter does not give the power to the United Nations to create a UnitedNations army to occupy anybody else’s country or to take over the powers ofadministration. The Charter does give the United Nations the power toconstitute an army to drive out the aggressor. But that step has not been taken,and I am glad it has not been taken because of the extent of the area of conflict.

THEREFORE THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS whether the amendmentshould be rejected, and our delegation is already committed; and the Presidentannounced to the Assembly the motion that I made that these two draftresolutions be now put to the vote and the general debate on the Egyptianquestion continued afterwards. There are many other problems to beconsidered. We have problems to bring up and propose to do so, and on themmajor draft resolutions can be submitted. I therefore request that thisamendment be rejected.

There is one further point I wish to make. An attempt is being made to have thevote, either on the main draft resolution or any part of the amendment, by parts.We shall invoke our rights under rule 91 of the rules of procedure to resist this.

I want to save the time of the Assembly and tell you what is on our minds.Before I leave the rostrum, I want to point out just this once that the Belgianamendment is a request to replace paragraph 1 and 2 of the operative part of ourdraft resolution [A/3385/Rev.1], and I ask the representatives to look atparagraph 2:

"Reiterates its call to France, Israel and the United Kingdom to complyforthwith with its resolutions of 2 and 7 November 1956."

If that paragraph is taken away, it is an admission that we no longer are willingto press the position that we decided upon in past meetings of the Assembly.That is clear both from the form in which the amendment is cast, and from theway the functions of the United Nations forces would be built in as a conditionand contingency in the draft resolution. The amendment says: "Notes thataccording to the information received..." The only information we recognise isinformation communicated to the Secretary-General, which says that Israel haswithdrawn part of its troops, implying thereby that it has been withdrawnaccording to the resolution, which is not the fact. Also, the amendment merelyasks for expediting; and if "immediate" means three weeks, how much will"expedite" mean? Therefore that is not enough.

I may be asked: What is the use of passing a strong resolution? I am in entireagreement with not using unnecessarily strong words. That is why our revisedversion of this morning is cast in the mildest, most polite language you couldthink of. There is nothing but the expression of regret. Sorrow is a good virtuewhen there is inequity of one kind or another. Anger is probably bad. That iswhy we have expressed not anger but regret.

I commend this draft resolution to the Assembly, and request you reject theamendment.

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, November 26,

195662

[Mr. Menon made a general statement on the aggression against Egypt, on theprocrastination of the aggressors, and on the role of the United NationsEmergency Force.]

The Assembly will recall that, as a result of the fact that Egypt’s action innationalising the Suez Canal was challenged, conferences were held in London;negotiations took place; and, finally, the Governments of the United Kingdom andFrance brought the problem before the Security Council. Some time in October,agreements were reached on the basis for discussion. It was understood at thattime by the world that the parties concerned were to talk directly to each other,using the good offices of the Secretary-General, and were to explore further thequestion of resolving the differences between Egypt and the two Westerncountries.

It should be realised by this time that, though the problem had vast internationalimplications in the sense that the Suez Canal, within Egyptian sovereignty and apart of Egyptian territory, is a waterway of international importance and of greateconomic importance to the world, both the western and the eastern hemispheres,the Secretary-General, so far as my Government is aware, had suggestedprovisionally that on 29 October those discussions should continue informally -because they would have no other status - between the representatives of theUnited Kingdom and France and the representative of Egypt, with his assistance,and that they should be held in Geneva.

That is a significant date, because it was on 29 October that Israel attacked Egypt.I ask the General Assembly to put this in its proper context. Here was a whole setof arrangements which had intervened in the armed preparations by the Anglo-French alliance, which we were told were merely precautionary, and my


Government accepted that statement and has no desire at the present moment togo into it. The Security Council had addressed itself to the question, and hadfound a basis for conversation, and 29 October was the date suggested. MyGovernment was informed by the Government of Egypt that it was willing toparticipate in those conversations. The world anticipated that the discussionswould take place on 29 October, until the Anglo-French alliance announced that itwas not willing to participate. It was on that selfsame date that Israel attackedEgypt.

Prior to that, there had been statements of a responsible character on behalf of theIsrael Government that it would not take advantage of the difficulties and thedisputes that had arisen over the Suez Canal to enforce its views or to indulge inany activities that might be embarrassing in those circumstances. In other words,it was not believed by anybody that advantage would be taken of the difficultiesof Egypt at that time or of the world situation arising from the controversy overthe Suez Canal...

So, on 29 October Egypt was attacked by the State of Israel. Now we areprepared to admit that this attack cannot be taken in isolation from the context ofthe history of the last ten years. All those who have been associated with theUnited Nations know that time and time again the Security Council has beencalled upon to intervene in skirmishes and attacks by one side or the other, andthere is a whole background or sharp differences of opinion having resulted inarmed conflict between one or other of the Arab States, or a number of them, onone side, and Israel on the other. But any justification for the attack of 29 Octobercannot be sought in this, because there was nothing extraordinary about thatsituation, and I think it would be idle to pretend that Egypt would have chosenthis particular opportunity, when it was being threatened by the accumulation ofthe naval, air and land forces of two great Western Powers as part of the pressuresto be exercised upon it, to launch a new attack.

Therefore, the only "justification" for this attack was that it was a preventive war,and the whole conception of preventive war is contrary to the principles of theCharter and the ideas of civilised existence. Preventive war is the doctrine of theblitzkrieg, and here on 29 October was launched a surprise attack.

On 30 October, the Governments of France and the United Kingdom issued anultimatum to the Governments of Egypt and Israel. I should like to read out thereport on this ultimatum as it appeared in the newspapers, which I believesufficiently corresponds to the text:

"The United Kingdom and France have addressed urgent communicationsto the Governments of Egypt and Israel calling upon both sides to stop allwarlike acts by land, sea and air forthwith, to withdraw their militaryforces to a distance of ten miles from the Canal; further, in order toseparate the belligerents and to guarantee freedom of transit through the

Canal by ships of all nations, they have asked the Egyptian Government toagree that Anglo-French forces should move temporarily into positions atPort Said, Ismailia and Suez. The Governments of Egypt and Israel havebeen asked to answer these communications within twelve hours..."

I should like the Assembly to look at this text. The Israel Government and theEgyptian Government were asked to withdraw ten miles from the Canal. TheCanal is within Egyptian territory, and for the Egyptians to withdraw ten mileswithin their own territory while the Israelis were permitted to go within tenmiles of the Canal would mean an open licence for the latter to come across theSinai peninsula to the border of the Canal. Therefore it is all very well to talkabout this as an equal ultimatum to both sides, but I submit that the phraseologymakes it quite clear it was not.

Secondly, we were told that the Egyptian Government was asked by the UnitedKingdom and French Governments to agree that their forces should occupy PortSaid, Ismailia and Suez; that is to say, there was a demand made upon asovereign country to permit the military occupation not only of a part of itsterritory, but of its key strategic positions. It should not be forgotten that so faras the United Kingdom was concerned, only two or three years ago, after a greatdeal of negotiation, the evacuation of those bases had taken place, and theconditions for re-entry had been incorporated into the Anglo-EgyptianAgreement of October 19, 1954.

Therefore this ultimatum was a violation of the principles of the Charter and ofinternational practice, an aggression against a sovereign nation and a threat toviolate its territory. Also, so far as the United Kingdom was concerned, it was aviolation of a specific agreement. Therefore any idea that this was permissibleor could be justified in any way because notice had been given falls to theground.

On 31 October, only two days later, the Anglo-French forces started bombingEgypt. We were told that the bombing was on military targets, and in thiscontext I will refer later this afternoon to the speech of the Foreign Minister ofFrance, without going into the question whether anyone has a right to bombsomeone else’s military targets except when they are attacked or in a state ofwar. I understand that it is the position of the Anglo-French alliance that theyare not in a state of war with Egypt but are performing military operations. Thatis a fine distinction, except when large numbers of people die, when thedistinction does not seem to have any meaning.

In this bombing of military targets, large numbers of Egyptian civilians,including women and children, perished. People were wounded. What is more,Arab quarters at Port Said were burned out. A great deal of destruction andsuffering was inflected upon the Egyptian people. The whole world has beenagainst the bombing of civilian populations, and the fact that notice was given to

people to quit their own homes does not make that act any more humane.

On 5 November, the Anglo-French forces landed. In the meantime, the GeneralAssembly had met and, on 2 November, had called upon those who had invadedEgyptian territory to withdraw within their own boundaries - that is, Israel - andupon the others not to import any arms or armed forces or to add to their militarystrength in that area.

Therefore the action taken by the Anglo-French side after the adoption of thatresolution [997 (ES-II)] was a flouting of the resolutions of this Assembly.Instead of ceasing their action immediately the United Kingdom and Francetried by landing and military operations to gain military advantages, hoping nodoubt to negotiate from that position of strength as against the military weaknessof the Egyptian side.

On 7 November, as a result of the Assembly’s efforts, a cease-fire wasestablished; but the foreign forces still remain on Egyptian soil.

BEFORE I PURSUE THESE EVENTS, I AM INSTRUCTED by myGovernment to make our position very clear in regard to the three partiesconcerned in this aggression.

I refer first to the United Kingdom. My country is in very close and harmoniousrelations both with the people of the United Kingdom and with its Government.While this action on its part, contrary to our judgement of what is right, has beena great shock to us - we shall criticise it, we shall never agree with it and weshall never agree not to say so - our relations with the United Kingdom stillremain harmonious, and it is our hope that as a result of the developments of thedays to come the lapses of the last few weeks will in some way be remedied. AsI have said, this has come as a great shock to our public opinion. MyGovernment has asked me to make this statement because, harsh as our criticismmay be, definite as our position may be in this matter of aggression, it does notcome from any feeling of hatred or vindictiveness or any desire to lower theprestige of another country.

The second party in this matter is, of course, France. We have very goodrelations with the French Government. By friendly conversations andagreement patiently conducted over a period of seven or eight years, the Frenchabandoned the last vestiges of their colonial empire on our territory. It was anaction which was of service to the world, as well as to our two countries. Wehave a great regard for their culture, their ideals and their institutions. We havea considerable amount of trade with them, and the relations between their peopleand ours are always friendly. Therefore anything we say in regard to the FrenchGovernment’s action is also in the same category.

I come now to the Government of Israel. The Government of India recognisesthe State of Israel and the Government of Israel. We have no quarrels with them.We desire to remain in friendly relations with them as with everybody else. Wehave taken part in the consideration of the Israel-Arab questions as part of ourresponsibilities in this Assembly. There is nothing in our tradition or in ourrecent history which can lay at our door the charge of any racial feelings, anyanti-Semitic feelings, or indeed the disregard of the rights of a member State.Our position in this is not the same as that of the Arab countries, and we do nothesitate to say so, irrespective of whatever emotions are aroused. Therefore,with respect to Israel also we have no feelings of hatred, no desire to rub thingsin or anything of that character. The way we address ourselves to this matter,therefore, is purely objective.

I NOW DESIRE TO REFER TO THE POSITION as set out by the threecountries. Mr. Lloyd, speaking on behalf of his Government told us that thepurpose of this attack was to do some sort of service to the cause of civilisation,to the cause of peace, which would prevent the world from going up in theflames of war. Secondly, he told us that this was a challenge which the UnitedKingdom had thrown out to the United Nations. I am sorry that that should havecome from him. Thirdly, we were told that it was a protective shield betweenthe combatants; the shield seems to have been something which prevented oneof the combatants from defending itself.

Neither my Government, nor anyone in my delegation, would ever privately orpublicly wish or state that instead of attacking Egypt the Anglo-French forcesshould have attacked Israel. We would never say that, we would never think it,because the bombing of women and children, of protected enterprise andindustry and of economic development in any country, the infliction of harm andcruelty in that way, particularly in a thickly populated area, is as much a crimeagainst humanity and as much to be deplored if it takes place on Israel’s territoryas on our own.

Therefore our argument is not, "Why do you not go and bomb them?" Ourargument is that, first of all, this was not an action to limit war. If we take, forargument’s sake, the idea that it was so thought of, it was wrongly conceived.The Governments of the United Kingdom and France have no responsibility, norights and indeed no defence for the position that they take up - that they havesome God-given function of policing the world. If Egypt or Israel was in dangerof being attacked, either one had the right under Article 51 of the Charter todefend itself individually and collectively. But for this Organisation to admiteven by quiescence that any member State, however powerful - whether it be theUnited States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom or France, the mostpowerful countries in the world - may take upon itself the protection of theworld, is to go away from the whole idea of collective organisation and from thedevelopment of some law in the world and to go back to the idea of national

enterprise for the maintenance, so-called, of peace in the world.

In all, the United Kingdom and France have visited many countries in the lastthree or four centuries. In many places they have stayed in a fit of absent-mindedness; they did in ours. They have conferred a great many benefits duringtheir sojourn. But their peoples have always desired the termination of that stay.Those like ourselves have managed to arrange it in a rather friendly way andtherefore we reaped the advantage both of the subordination as well as of thepresent friendship.

Therefore we deny this conception, first of all, that in fact it was a war toprevent a greater war. We deny the right to wage the war. We stateemphatically that it was a violation of the provisions of the Charter, particularlyof Article 2, paragraph 4. I do not mention the Israel Government, because itmakes no bones about this. Of course, there are other people who are putting onthis the aura of idealism. Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter definitely says:

"All Members"- there is no exemption here for the permanent members ofthe Security Council or for those that have higher standards of civilisationor have arrogated to themselves a moral right - "shall refrain in theirinternational relations from the threat or use of force against the territorialintegrity or political independence of any State, or in any other mannerinconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

If it is going to be argued that this action is consistent with the purposes of theUnited Nations, then we turn to Article 1, where we say that among thosepurposes is the maintenance of international peace. It will be a bad day whenwe say that the maintenance of international peace is to be achieved by thebombing of civilian populations and by a blitzkrieg on countries, a word and aset of circumstances which we want to forget in our civilisation. Article 1 goeson to say: "and to that end: to take effective collective measures for theprevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts ofaggression or other breaches of the peace." The words from "to take effectivecollective measures" are not covered by this action. It is true that if Israel,France and the United Kingdom act together, it is a collective measure. Franceand the United Kingdom, however, have denied that they acted in collaborationwith the State of Israel.

If it is argued that the French and the British acting together are taking collectivemeasures, I submit that Article 1 of the Charter does not imply or contemplatemeasures of that kind, but measures that are provided for in Chapter VII of theCharter. Therefore, if the United Kingdom and France, which have a specialvoice in the counsels of this Assembly as permanent members of the SecurityCouncil, knew that Israel was going to attack on 29 October - and if that wasthe reason why they did not want to go to Geneva, because they were otherwiseoccupied - then their duty, in my humble submission, would have been to

convoke the Security Council and ask for such action to be taken as would arrestthe aggression that Israel was contemplating, especially since in this particularmatter the United Nations had not only created the State of Israel but had alsoput in machinery, however weak or inadequate, to supervise the truce as itexisted between the two countries. So they took it out of the United Nations,they took it out of the truce machinery and returned to the law of the nineteenthcentury.

The invasion of Egypt by the United Kingdom Government stands on a par withthe attack on Alexandria in 1880 and the occupation of Egypt thereafter. Thismust be clearly understood, and we keep on reiterating these things, because inthe last week, in the United Kingdom, in this country and in this Assembly andelsewhere, there has been an attempt to describe this action as though it wassome service to the world. The moment we permit this halo to get around it, toportray an act of aggression as an act of morality, we shall be unable to take anycorrective action.

Mr. Lloyd further told us that the action we were taking in regard to the UnitedNations Emergency Force had been first conceived by the Prime Minister of theUnited Kingdom, that the idea had been repeated in this Assembly by SirPierson Dixon, and that thereafter it had been put before the Assembly by theForeign Minister of Canada. I must say that we are rather taken aback by this.We had accepted, we continue to accept the actions of the CanadianGovernment as taken in good faith, as measures arising from themselves, not aspart of the policies of the two aggressor countries. Mr. Lloyd’s statement treatsthe Canadian proposal as though it were part and parcel of Anglo-French foreignpolicy. The Canadian Government can make its own explanations and defenditself.

So far as our Government is concerned, the proposal for setting up anemergency force was a conception - there is nothing unusual about it - putforward by the Foreign Minister of Canada as one of the ways to bring about acease-fire.

Then Mr. Lloyd went on to refer to the conditions under which the aggressorswould withdraw, a cease-fire having been affected on 7 November. On 2November, an immediate cease-fire had been asked for [resolution 997 (ES-I)].On 4 November, the General Assembly had asked for the withdrawal of allnon-Egyptian forces from Egyptian soil [resolution 999 (ES-I)]. The Israelforces were to go behind the armistice lines and the United Kingdom and Franceto withdraw from Egyptian territory. The Secretary-General was to report oncompliance.

Therefore to suggest in any way that the withdrawal is dependent upon thejudgement of the United Kingdom and French Governments as to thecompetence of the United Nations Emergency Force, is again to seek to usurp

the powers of this Assembly. Who are these two Governments to make theirown judgements? They can no more make judgements about the action of theAssembly by themselves than we can - and we do not claim that right.Therefore, whether this United Nations Emergency Force is competent is amatter for General Burns on the one hand and the Secretary-General on theother. Constitutional responsibility for it rests in this Assembly, and mydelegation denies the right of the Governments of the United Kingdom andFrance to appropriate to themselves the right to say that this Force is competentfor any one purpose or another.

But the position becomes much worse when we go into the substance of thiscompetence. Competence for what? Competence to perform the duties that theAnglo-French invaders were supposed to be attempting? In other words, theview expressed in the statement by Mr. Lloyd before this Assembly is that theUnited Nations Emergency Force is a continuation of the invading forces. It isto perform the part of putting what is called a protective shield between thecombatants, of staying there for the solution of various problems, of preventingconflicts in the sense they understood it - and therefore hallowing theaggression.

I hope that this Assembly will at no time lend itself to a position where byvarious and devious methods it is called upon to give its blessing to invasion.

Mr. Lloyd continued: "We are, therefore, prepared to make this act of faith." Ishould have thought the withdrawal was an act of penitence, not an act of faith.I hope the word is used in the sense of their faith in the Assembly. Mr. Lloydalso stated:

"We think that there is in this a great test for the United Nations and forthe Powers on whose continued support the United Nations ultimatelydepends.

"We are, therefore, prepared to make this act of faith because we believethat the United Nations has the will to ensure that the United NationsEmergency Force will effectively and honourably carry out all thefunctions laid down for it in the Assembly resolutions."

I entirely endorse that particular sentence, if I may. However, Mr. Lloydcontinued:

"But, should our faith prove to have been misplaced, should all this effortand disturbance have been for nothing, should the United Nations fail toshow the necessary will-power to procure the lasting settlements required,then indeed there will be cause for alarm and despondency."

"Alarm and despondency" where? Is it a threat to cause "alarm and

despondency" in our minds or in the minds of the humble people of Egypt? Hecontinued:

"That is our position with regard to this question of withdrawal: it willtake place as soon as possible, as the United Nations Force becomeseffective and competent to discharge its functions."

I submit that the competence of the United Nations Emergency Force is entirelya matter for the United Nations. The Governments of France, the UnitedKingdom and Israel will contribute in that judgement in the proportion of theirpower here, namely, each as one sovereign State amongst seventy-nine nations.That is our position.

THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF FRANCE63 in the general debate before thisAssembly told us the position of his Government. I am glad to say that headmitted as follows:

"We have been sharply rebuked for taking the initiative in launchingmilitary operations without having been directly attacked. While I amprepared to concede the cogency of that criticism from a strictly formalpoint of view, I would like to suggest an analogy at this point."

Mr. Pineau then quoted a statement he himself had made in a small ruralcommunity in France. He said that Hitler’s armies should have been attacked in1936. Well, if the comparison is right, then again I say that the place to find theforce to attack an intending aggressor, if that is the argument, was the SecurityCouncil.

The Foreign Minister of France then went on to say:

"The most important feature of this short campaign is the vast amount ofmilitary equipment of Soviet origin captured by the Israel army in theSinai desert. It is impossible to believe that this could have been utilisedby the Egyptian army alone, which everyone knew had very fewspecialists and technicians."

Apparently the Egyptian army did not think so. But whatever it is, are we to beput in a position that if we buy military equipment from anyone, it means thatthe particular seller of the military equipment is part of our fighting forces or ourmilitary allies? My country purchases a considerable amount of militaryequipment from France. But, so far as I am aware, we have no militaryagreements with them and we have no intention of using French forces for anypurposes of our own. This is a very dangerous proposition because,

63 Christian Pineau

unfortunately, people go around and buy arms from here, there and everywhere.For that reason, should a political meaning be read into this?

But that is not the main purport of this statement. The French Foreign Ministercontinued:

"As far as the Anglo-French action is concerned, the main concern was todestroy the aircraft which had also been abundantly supplied by the SovietUnion. We bombed airfields and destroyed aircraft on the ground, but wealways gave due warning so that the personnel could take shelter, whichthey always very carefully did."

They always did "very carefully" in Port Said and in other places where thereare no air raid shelters, where there has been very little time to get people tounderstand them. What is more, when the time comes - and I hope theAssembly will take the right steps - it will be found that large numbers ofcivilians, including women and children, have been killed, their homesdestroyed and great destruction wrought in these areas.

However, I cannot understand the logic of the argument that says that there is anamelioration of aggression just because you want to destroy somebody else’saircraft. If there is going to be disarming in the world, that is to say, thelowering of the armed strength of any country, are we to imagine that the way todo it is for somebody to go and bomb other people’s arms? Then let us cut outthe Disarmament Commission and let each country go and bomb other people’sarms and destroy them that way. That seems to be a kind of law of the jungle.

France has been engaged in colonial wars ever since the conclusion of theSecond World War. The long period in Indo-China was happily terminated bythe wisdom of French and other statesmanship in 1954; and when the guns weresilenced in Indo-China, for the first time in a quarter of a century there was nowar in the world. France has suffered ravage by invasion, and its people, bothinside and outside France, as we all know, fought heroically in its defence. Butever since the conclusion of that war, but for the brief spell of the armistice inIndo-China and the beginning of the ruthless war over North Africa, thesecolonial wars have gone on. We cannot help wondering whether this enterprisein Egypt was not a part of the same process.

We have been told that there is some distinction in the mind of the FrenchForeign Minister between small nations and big nations, with regard to theirwisdom. He quite rightly tells us that the atomic bomb will destroy us all, andthat therefore we must try to disarm and give up this atomic weapon. But theimportant part - and it has a bearing on the whole of this proposition - is theattitude of a big country to a small country. Mr. Pineau went on to say thefollowing:

"In a few years, when atomic energy becomes less expensive, themanufacture of atomic bombs will be easy. We may well ask in allseriousness what will become of peace when each nation possesses theatomic bomb and threatens to use it. The mad will then be the masters ofthe world."

Why should the small countries have the monopoly of madmen? That I do notunderstand.

I COME NEXT TO THE ISRAEL POSITION. So far as the General Assemblyresolutions are concerned, the Assembly has called upon Israel to withdraw itsforces behind the armistice lines. Speaking on the Belgian amendment, I said,on behalf of my delegation, that in view of the arguments that had been raised,we would be willing to reconsider the draft resolution [A/3385/Rev.1] if it werepointed out to us that the Israel forces had withdrawn behind the armistice lines.Then the representative of Israel, in his intervention, went on to say thatthousands of people from the Sinai peninsula had gone back to their homes, totheir factories and to their farms. Well, soldiers going back home is not thewithdrawal of forces behind the armistice line. But if the Secretary-General hadbeen informed with particulars that Israel forces had been withdrawn behind thearmistice line, my delegation would consider it the duty of the Assembly to haverecorded that fact. However, that does not appear to be the position. As I saidon November 24, if an action of that kind had been taken, the Israel Governmentwould not be loath to inform the Assembly about it, because it would be to itsadvantage. And even in the evening of that day my delegation reiterated that ifthere were such a communication before the Secretary-General, we would beprepared to refer to it and to make our own position clear in the course of theintervention today. We waited for it.

This afternoon, there was a communication from the Minister for ForeignAffairs of Israel to the Secretary-General [A/3395]. I have read this documentcarefully, and the wording is just the same. There is no reference towithdrawing behind the armistice lines, merely to the withdrawal of forces fromEgypt. This communication states the following:

"In the plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 24 November theIsrael representative expressed the willingness of the Israel Government tocontinue to discuss with you the means of implementing its undertakingswith respect to the withdrawal of forces from Egypt."

It goes on to say that Israel is prepared to make specific proposals. Thedocument also says:

"On 8 November, I conveyed to you my Government’s expression ofwillingness to withdraw its forces from Egyptian territory on the

conclusion of satisfactory arrangements with the United Nations."

I wish to say, in order to be frank with the Assembly, that I have not seen anydocument so far, coming from the Government of Israel, which categoricallyinforms the Secretary-General that any appreciable part of its troops has beenwithdrawn. By this is meant regiments, units of the army, and not soldiers goinghome for a holiday; that can take place even in the middle of a war; soldiers gohome and that cannot be regarded as withdrawal. What is more, even in thislatest Israel communication, there is a specific refusal to mention withdrawalbehind the armistice lines. This matter is of very great importance.

I ADDRESS MYSELF NOW TO THE REPORTS AND THE DRAFTRESOLUTIONS that are before us. A while ago it was said - and I refer to ourposition in regard to the general status of this debate - that the debate iscontinuing and that it is open to anyone to submit draft resolutions, evenhereafter. In this connection, I should like to point out that there are still draftresolutions before the General Assembly. There are draft resolutions concerningthe maintenance of the United Nations Emergency Force which have not beentaken up. They have been introduced in order to obtain Assembly authority forthe maintenance of these forces, for their expenditure and so on. Therefore, it isnot as though the business is finished.

As regards the running of this Force, so far as my Government is concerned wehave had discussions with the Secretary-General, and as members of theAdvisory Committee we have been given a certain amount of information, andthe matter will come up again for discussion when we consider the Secretary-General’s report on this matter, which contains his revised draft resolution[A/3383(Annex)/Rev.1].

There are three or four matters on which my Government desires to expressitself. In the first place, with regard to the United Nations Emergency Force, theposition of the Government of India was fully set out in the Assembly during thedebate on that matter when I read to the Assembly the six conditions on whichmy Government would participate in the force. They have been discussed withthe Secretary-General before, and the covering letter refers to the discussion andalso to the fact that there was agreement in so far as the formulation of thoseconditions was concerned. There was an acknowledgement by the Secretary-General to the effect that the conditions attached had been fully noted and thatthe offer was accepted. It is well known that both in private municipal law andin international law, if you make an offer with conditions and that offer isaccepted, it means that the conditions are accepted. I will not tax the Assemblyby reading them out, but those six conditions are on record.

That has a bearing upon what has been said with regard to the function of theAssembly by the representative of Canada and by others. Our understanding of

this, and of the basis on which the United Nations Force is organised, is thatthere can be no violation of Egyptian sovereignty. It is the sovereign right ofevery Government to admit to its territory whom it likes and to refuse to admitthose whom it does not like. It is equally the prerogative of the Assembly todetermine the composition of the Force.

Now the composition of the United Nations Force and the conditions uponwhich it works, are in our view, governed by various documents. One of thesegoverning conditions is contained in paragraph 12 of the report of the Secretary-General of 6 November [A/3302]. So far as we are concerned, during thediscussion of this report at the first emergency special session, my delegationasked for certain clarifications and also put forward our interpretation of certainpoints, which interpretation was accepted by the Secretary-General during themeeting.

The statement to which I refer is as follows:

"The representative of India has raised a great number of points. Onseveral he has attempted an interpretation of what I intended to say, and Ithink I can say that on all those points, to the extent that I could fully graspwhat the representative said, I can confirm that his interpretation of myintention is correct."

This is followed by other statements on record, so there is no difficulty in thatregard. In addition, there is a memorandum from the Egyptian Governmentwhich sets out conditions under which the Emergency Force may work in Egypt,which conditions are also part of the record. There have been references to thebasing of units of the United Nations Force in Egypt, to their arrival and the areathey should occupy, to the withdrawal of Israel forces behind the armisticedemarcation line and other matters concerning the withdrawal of non-Egyptianforces.

The question of the area occupied by the Force would be subject to agreement.The Secretary-General declared that it was his intention to negotiate with theGovernment of Egypt concerning the conditions of operation of the UnitedNations Force, having regard to the agreed list and balanced composition. Atthis time it would be possible to begin the transit of troops.

With regard to the length of stay of United Nations forces in Egypt, it was notedthat the forces would arrive only with Egypt’s consent, and that they could notstay or operate unless Egypt continued to give such consent. These are allquotations. The Secretary-General stated these conditions had been based on theunderstanding of Egyptian acceptance.

Therefore, so far as my Government is concerned, the position is very clear.There can be no question that these forces are in Egypt as occupying troops.

They are in no way to perform the functions of invading forces, and theirpresence should in no way be regarded as a factor which should delay thewithdrawal of the invading troops. The withdrawal of such invading troopsmust take place immediately and, of course, in this connection "immediately"means as soon as practicable. There should be no delay awaiting the fulfilmentof some other conditions. The only governing factor should be the mechanics ofwithdrawal.

NOW WE COME TO TWO OTHER PROBLEMS with regard to the SuezCanal. First, with regard to the clearing of the Canal, I desire to state on behalfof my Government that it is not our intention to do anything that would delaysuch clearance. At the same time, we understand the actions taken by the UnitedNations on behalf of the Egyptian Government as being actions taken with theauthority of the Egyptian Government. Therefore there is no question ofviolation of Egypt’s sovereignty. We hope with confidence - we might even saywith trust - that these functions will be carried out expeditiously. Furthermore,the cost involved will necessarily be the subject of discussion by this Assembly.

At the present moment my Government is not prepared to make any categoricalstatement in this connection. We will be bound by the decision of the GeneralAssembly, in so far as it conforms with our parliamentary procedures, but at theappropriate time my delegation will raise the question of the necessity ofvigilance in, for example, the provision of a comprehensive audit of theexpenses which must arise. We must also consider who is to cover such costs,whether the United Nations is to indemnify aggression which, in my opinion,would mean that it would have to under-write aggression to a certain extent. Wehave already heard some of the representatives of Latin American countries whohave stated that their countries are not prepared to shoulder such responsibility,and we must look upon this as a financial matter.

We entirely agree with the recommendation of the Secretary-General that thisconsideration should not delay action. The Secretary-General is acting on theresolution which my delegation had the honour to co-sponsor, and I want itclearly understood by the Assembly that this is not a final resolution - it is aresolution giving the Secretary-General authorisation and power to undertakethe necessary expenditures in order to carry out the proposals before theAssembly. I think, as all of you who have taken the trouble to read thedocuments to which this resolution refers will see, that this is merely a means offacilitating the commencement of operations and of enabling our Secretary-General to make the necessary investigations. That is the purpose of theresolution, and it is our intention to encourage the withdrawal of troops so thatthe clearance of the Canal can take place.

There is no doubt that the British and French equipment now in the Suez Canalarea has a very considerable mechanical contribution to make and would be

most useful in speeding up this process if the Egyptian Government were willingto permit its use, in which case my Government would not object. However,this is an entirely Egyptian problem, in so far as it is for the EgyptianGovernment to give its consent or otherwise.

We feel, however, that the Egyptian people cannot be asked to entertain thepresence of Anglo-French personnel in the present state of affairs. We havebeen somewhat heartened by the fact that there are nearly 8,000 British subjectsin Egypt and that so far there has been no violence against them, although, fromour reports, they are living under strictly limited conditions owing to the state ofpublic opinion. We trust that the Egyptian Government will continue to exerciserestraint, and we have confidence that it will do so, as is expected of a civilisedpeople. On the other hand, we cannot very well ask the Egyptian Government torevise its views, unless it does so of its own volition, because of the use of theseinvading forces, unless, perhaps, there is some sort of indemnification orpenitence. This is something that is not usually expected of people, and it maylead to difficulties.

I understand the Secretary-General has other arrangements in hand, and we werevery happy to note that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the UnitedKingdom offered every co-operation. We have every reason to believe that suchco-operation would take into account these difficulties of personnel and so on.Therefore the contributions would be of a character which do not impinge on thecircumstances which prevail at the present time.

The other draft resolution relates to the expenditure upon the Force[A/3383(Annex)/Rev.1]. Here again the Secretary-General has made somereports and, so far as our contribution to the Emergency Force is concerned,these matters have been discussed by the Advisory Committee and also betweenGovernments, and the principles on which they are based have been approvedby the Assembly. However, the details have still to come before us fordiscussion.

I hope that very soon it will be possible for the Secretary-General to advise thisAssembly of the extent of damage to property and loss of life which is involved,and on the need for relief in Egypt. According to our information, such damageis on a very vast scale - much larger than one would be inclined to believe fromreports so far published.

So long as these conditions remain - and it is only fair to say that theseconditions are not only those expressed by the Secretary of State for ForeignAffairs of the United Kingdom to this Assembly but also those expressed by hisGovernment - then the withdrawal is contingent. A contingent withdrawal is notwhat has been asked for by this Assembly.

Coming back again to the extent of damage and casualties, although my

Government does not readily accept these reports, because there is always anelement of exaggeration of war damage, we do feel that the time has come forthe Assembly to take some decision to ask for a report from the InternationalRed Cross, and also to appoint a group of representatives of selected nations tovisit the areas occupied by invading armies and to inform the public of the worldas to the exact extent of damage and the requirements for rehabilitation.

Particularly for a country that is economically backward, the margin ofresistance in these matters is very small and, while my delegation has nointention of submitting any proposals until after we have heard the ForeignMinister of Egypt, we would suggest that the General Assembly should notforget, because our minds have been focused on these big military questions ofwithdrawal and on the related political questions, that there is this vasthumanitarian problem. Thousands of people have been killed - the officialstatement made by one of the governments concerned is that the number is verymuch less, but whether it is less or more must be ascertained by the Assembly.Whether it be in Egypt or in Hungary, my Government would not, in public orresponsible statements, be willing to accept reports that are not authorised.

Therefore we would suggest that the time has come for the Assembly toconsider receiving a report from a highly trustworthy authority - that is, theInternational Red Cross - and also to consider appointing a group of its ownmembers to send their representatives into these areas, with the permission ofthe parties concerned, to appraise themselves of the conditions.

Finally, the Government of India has sent its troops into Egypt. As I said thelast time I spoke from this rostrum, those troops have been in North Africabefore. They were part of a fighting army and, as a fighting army, theyperformed their duties. This time they have gone there as a peace army. Onbehalf of my Government, I stated categorically that our understanding of theuse of Egyptian territory was merely as a right of way to the border, and that thebusiness of this army was to separate the combatants and to keep themseparated. That is the function which the Force will perform. We are happy toknow that the various units - Canadian, Scandinavian, Yugoslav and Indian - areall co-operating and that it is not, as the Foreign Secretary of the UnitedKingdom feared, a hotch-potch.

My Government also desires to express its appreciation of the role and functionsof General Burns, the Commander, to whom our officers will give full co-operation.

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, February 2,

195764


[Britain and France completed the withdrawal of their forces from the Egyptianterritory on December 22, 1956. But Israel continued to procrastinate. Afterrepeated calls by the General Assembly, it withdrew from most of the Egyptianterritory by January 24, 1957, but set conditions for withdrawal from the Sharmel Sheikh area which commanded the Gulf of Aqaba, and Gaza, Palestinianterritory on the Egyptian side of the Armistice Line.

In this speech, Mr. Menon explained two draft resolutions co-sponsored byIndia and six other countries. The first draft again called on Israel to completeits withdrawal without delay. The second dealt with measures, after thewithdrawal, to assure progress towards the creation of peaceful conditions. Thetwo drafts were adopted on 2 February as resolutions 1124 (XI) and 1125(XI).]

We are once again debating today a subject that came before us as a matter ofemergency three months ago. It cannot be a matter of congratulation toourselves or an assurance that the cause of peace is being furthered when werealise that, three months after the first resolution was adopted, we are stillreiterating the same resolution.

After all the speeches that the Assembly has had to hear today it is not mypurpose to elaborate my observations to any greater extent than is necessary forthe purpose of two draft resolutions before the Assembly.

The resolutions that were formally passed on the various dates that are set out inthe two draft resolutions before the Assembly all had two purposes. One wasthe withdrawal of the invading forces, in this particular case the Israel forces,from Egyptian and Egyptian-controlled territory. The second was thescrupulous observance of the Armistice Agreement. In different ways, thesetwo purposes, either together or separately, appear in the resolutions of 2, 4 and24 November 1956, and 19 January 1957.

Only a few days ago, this Assembly passed a resolution [1123(XI)] asking forthe total withdrawal of the Israel invading forces behind the armisticedemarcation lines. It should be remembered that, from the very beginning, theAssembly has insisted that these forces should withdraw behind the demarcationlines provided by the Armistice Agreement of 1949.

These forces are still, in part, on the Egyptian side or the Egyptian-controlledside of the armistice lines.

I should like further to say that the subject before this Assembly, from thebeginning of the first emergency special session till now, is not the resolving ofwhat has been known as the Arab-Israel question. We were faced with the issue

of invasion, the issue of aggression, and that is what we were dealing with. AsGovernments engaged in the consideration of these questions, it is inevitablethat we should look at other related matters, but that would not take away fromthe crucial fact that other progress may follow afterwards. That does not meanthat there is any condition attached to the withdrawal. Each one of theseresolutions asks for unconditional withdrawal.

In order that there might be no apprehension that this applies only to oneparticular aggressor, I should like to recall to the Assembly what my delegationsaid on 7 November last in regard to the other invading forces. We said:

"We cannot accept the position that the invading forces lay down theconditions, ostensibly in the interest of the invaded party. If we do that,we put ourselves in the position of justifying the invasion itself. And thatis a position which my Government is not ready to accept."

TODAY WE HAVE TWO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS BEFORE US, and thesedraft resolutions deal with two separate matters. I wish to state without anyambiguity whatsoever that we do not regard the first draft resolution [A/3517] asconditional. Both draft resolutions deal with matters with which the Assembly isconcerned. They are both matters related to the Armistice Agreement and evento the peace of the world.

The first relates to withdrawal, and I shall speak on that first. It recalls theprevious resolutions and it deplores "the non-compliance of Israel to completeits withdrawal behind the armistice demarcation line despite the repeatedrequests of the General Assembly."

The reference to complete withdrawal means the withdrawal not only of thearmed forces of Israel, but of whatever elements there may be in the invadedarea. Therefore there can be no question of an exception for civilian forces orcivilian authorities or anything of this kind. That is the meaning according tomy delegation, which is one of the sponsors, and I feel sure that no sponsorwould join issue on this: that "non-compliance to complete its withdrawal"refers to the withdrawal of everything connected with the State of Israel behindthe armistice demarcation line.

Paragraph 2 calls for the completion of such withdrawal without further delay.In accordance with the usual practice of these resolutions, the language of this ismild; it does not seek to use exaggerated terms. But I think the Assembly isentitled to feel assured that this further call for a withdrawal, coming threemonths after the first resolution, means that that withdrawal must take placeforthwith, this is, that there should be no intervening period between the passingof this draft resolution and the process of withdrawal, which can only spreadover so many hours or so many days as the case may be, as is required in

practice, as in the case of the other withdrawals from Egyptian territory, exceptthat, the United Nations Emergency Force being now in operation and havinggained experience from the previous withdrawals, it should be possible for thiswithdrawal to be completed very much more quickly.

That is with regard to the first draft resolution. I believe that, in examining thevote on previous resolutions, there should be very little doubt with regard to thesupport that will be given to it.

I come now to the second draft resolution [A/3518]. In connection with this, Irepeat what I said before, namely that it is a separate draft resolution and that itis not by way of a condition which should be satisfied or a price which is offeredso that the first draft resolution might be implemented. On the other hand, it isrelated to the first draft resolution in the sense that nothing that is said inresolution 1120 (XI) would have any meaning whatsoever unless what is said inthe first draft resolution is completed. To that extent, there is a one-wayrelationship, but there is no two-way relationship so far as we are concerned.The complete withdrawal of Israel behind the armistice demarcation line, asrequested in the first draft resolution, is required before the United Nations canaddress itself to its general purposes, namely those of conciliation in themaintenance of peace and the promotion of harmony.

I should like to explain the position of my delegation, as a sponsor of this seconddraft resolution, so that there should be no doubt in the mind of anyone who iscasting his vote as to exactly what the draft resolution stands for.

First, there is reference to the Secretary-General’s report [A/3512], which isbefore us. The Assembly will recall that, after adopting the resolution[1123(XI)] of 19 January, we requested the Secretary-General to make an earlyreport and we fixed the time limit for it. We now have that report before us forour consideration.

Having received and considered that report, the second draft resolution statesthat the withdrawal by Israel must be followed by action which would assureprogress towards the creation of peaceful conditions. Now that is the expressionof one of the purposes of the United Nations. It is a statement that, oncewithdrawal is completed, it will be possible for the United Nations and theparties concerned to proceed to other things.

The paragraph should be understood in that way, which is its open and plainmeaning. All proposals that are put before organisations of this kind must beinterpreted in their plain meaning.

Paragraph 2 calls upon the Governments of Egypt and Israel scrupulously toobserve the provisions of the 1949 Armistice Agreement. I have statedpreviously in connection with this question that it is legitimate for us to look at

performance. I have stated, in speaking on the first draft resolution, thatperformance as related to withdrawal is still incomplete. With regard to thescrupulous observance of the provisions of the 1949 Armistice Agreement, theessential provision of which is that people should keep on either side of thearmistice demarcation line, there has been no compliance on the part of Israel.Furthermore, when I last spoke on the subject I referred to violations of thecease-fire agreement that had taken place after the acceptance of the cease-fireresolution [997(ES-I)].

On the other side, the Secretary-General states in paragraph 22 of his report that,in the course of the discussions which took place after the circulation of hisprevious report, he was informed of the desire of the Government of Egypt "thatall raids and incursions across the armistice demarcation line, in both directions,be brought to an end, and that United Nations auxiliary organs afford effectiveassistance to that effect." The last part of that statement requires the closeattention of members.

The present draft resolution suggests that United Nations forces, should beplaced on both sides of the armistice demarcation line so that the ArmisticeAgreement might be better secured and so that there might be no violation of it.

It is the position of my delegation, as a sponsor of this draft resolution, that theForce can be placed only on both sides of the armistice demarcation line, whichis sketched for ready reference on the map at the end of the Secretary-General’sreport [A/3512]. The line goes from Rafah, on the other side of the Gaza Strip,down to a point just below Elath, on the Gulf of Aqaba. It is not the individualposition of my Government, but the position of the draft resolution, that theUnited Nations Emergency Force, after the total withdrawal of Israel, be placedon this armistice demarcation line. That would mean the total evacuation of theGaza Strip and also the removal of the invading forces from that area in theSinai desert between the red line on the map and the Gulf of Aqaba. But there isno suggestion, and there can be no suggestion, that foreign forces, which areUnited Nations forces, can be stationed anywhere on Egyptian territory.

HERE I WANT TO GO INTO THE FACTS and into what might be called thelaw of this question.

The procedures involved in this question are all governed by the resolutionswhich we have adopted and which incorporate paragraph 12 of the report of theSecretary-General [A/3302] from which the United Nations Force emerged. MyGovernment at that time laid down specific conditions on which we wouldparticipate in the United Nations Force. But if we had merely laid down thoseconditions, they would have had little value except as being the view of oneGovernment. Those conditions, however, were accepted. The Secretary-General accepted them when we agreed to participate in that Force. My

delegation made reference to it again on November 7, 1956, when we wereengaged in the last phase of obtaining the withdrawal of the British and Frenchforces from Egyptian territory. We stated that it was understood that if theForce was going to function on Egyptian territory, there must be Egyptianconsent for that process.

It has been basic to the whole functioning of UNEF that it could not set footanywhere on Egyptian soil except in full accordance with international law andpractice and with recognition of the sovereignty of Egyptian territory.

This is not the view of only one Government. Indeed, it is not only somethingthat was agreed to by resolution, but it is an international agreement between theSecretary-General and the Egyptian Government, which is set out in an aide-memoire [A/3375, annex], and the Secretary-General made reference to ityesterday.

If that is not sufficient, the Secretary-General, in his latest report [A/3512], hasset out in paragraph 5 (a), (b) and (c) what must be regarded, in terms of hisdraft resolution, as the governing conditions under which any recommendation,any proposal here can be considered.

At the present moment the point to be resolved is the evacuation of the invadingforces from the Gaza Strip. It is argued sometimes that there is some doubt as tothe legal status of this territory, but there can be no doubt as to what its statuswas before the invasion; and what sub-paragraph 5(a) says is that there can beno changes in regard to that. Therefore the only solution, the only development,the only response that can be made by the invading party is to withdraw behindthe armistice line in regard to that particular area.

There has been some reference in various speeches to the effect that the UnitedNations could go all round the world conducting elections and introducingtroops and taking over the governments of sovereign States. The Charter is veryclear on this and, under the provisions of Charter VII, any proposal to introducetroops into Egyptian territory would require the consent of the Government ofEgypt.

It is true that the United Nations Emergency Force is an organ of the UnitedNations. To that extent it takes its instructions, its guidance from the UnitedNations, but, as the Secretary-General has pointed out on previous occasions, itis equally true that it has to function on sovereign territory; so that, if there is thelaw on the one side, there is the law on the other side that sovereignty has to berespected. Therefore arrangements must be made, which is what the Secretary-General has done, with the Government of Egypt, and the Government of Egypthas responded in good faith. Therefore, there cannot be any question ofordering these forces to operate anywhere except in terms of Egyptiansovereignty and with Egyptian consent. Sub-paragraph 5(c) says the United

Nations actions "must respect fully the rights of member States recognised in theCharter." The right of a Government under the Charter is the right to maintainits sovereignty. It must also respect international agreements - and I submit thatthe Armistice Agreement is an international agreement, and therefore that itsterms must be respected.

Now, if these are the governing conditions, then it follows that what is nowproposed is merely the placing of these troops on territory that is the frontierbetween Israel and the Egyptian-controlled area, which is the armisticedemarcation line. In placing them there, it is necessary that they should beplaced on both sides of that line, and their function, as the Secretary-Generalpoints out, if all is agreed to, would be to assist the present observation corps tocarry out what Egypt has said it desires and to which it has agreed, namely, that"all raids and incursions across the armistice line, in both directions, be broughtto an end."

With regard to the remainder of the territory which is still under Israeloccupation, the withdrawal not having been completed, the only function thatUNEF can perform in that area is of the same kind as it has been performing onthe rest of Egyptian territory, namely, that of supervising the cease-fire and thewithdrawal and the securing of that withdrawal. Therefore the entry of thisForce anywhere else at any time would be governed by the conditions underwhich the Secretary-General and the Egyptian Government have come to anagreement.

I refer to the Egyptian Government because all these operations are on Egyptianterritory. It so happens that Egypt is the invaded country and not Israel. If Israelwere the invaded country, it would equally apply to it, but the facts are thatforeign forces are on Egyptian soil, and it is for the purpose of removing themthat this machinery of UNEF has been put forward.

I believe that paragraph 2 of the second draft resolution is common ground,since it calls on both sides scrupulously to observe the Armistice Agreement.

I should now like to take each part of paragraph 3 separately.

There is reference here to the Sharm E1 Sheikh and Gaza areas. Those terms aredescriptive and are easily comprehensible if one looks at the map. There is noauthority anywhere in the agreement reached, no suggestion in this draftresolution, that any part of Egyptian territory, whether it be the island of Tiran orSharm El Sheikh or any of these other places, should be occupied. MyGovernment has repeated time and again and has made a basic position in regardto UNEF, that at no time can it become an occupying force in another country.Therefore its movements, its functioning in a territory that is Egyptian, mustdepend upon the agreements that have been made before. That explains thereference to the Sharm El Sheikh and Gaza areas; that is the geographical

description of the territories that now remain under occupation.

The wording used here is "on the Egyptian-Israel armistice demarcation line."Some representatives have raised doubts about this, and it is quite obvious that aforce which is now about 5,000 strong could not stand on a line which bears amerely geometrical definition; it must be on either side. What is more, it is onlyunder conditions where this Force that is intended to be protective can occupyboth sides of the line by arrangements with both sides that it can be other than anoccupation force. If it were only on one side, then it would be placing thatcountry under protection and, to a certain extent, sharing the character of anoccupation force.

Then comes the next part of operative paragraph 3, which refers to the"implementation of other measures as proposed in the Secretary-General’sreport, with due regard to the considerations set out therein." The purpose ofthat paragraph is to say that all other measures must be governed by theconsiderations which I have read out, considerations which govern the whole ofthe procedure we are debating.

It would not be right to shy away from controversial issues; speeches have beenmade here on the question of freedom of navigation and various other issues,and this Assembly knows the number and the complexity of the issuessurrounding this problem. Here, therefore, it is necessary to draw attention toparagraph 23 of the Secretary-General’s report [A/3512] on which we have beenasked to express our opinion. There are at least three important ideas here whichare covered by this phraseology in the draft resolution, "with due regard to theconsiderations set out therein."

The first is that this matter is not directly related to the present crisis and that theconcern evinced therein is related to legal aspects of the problem, which mustbe treated in its own right. In paragraph 24, the Secretary-General points outthat the legal problems in this connection are not beyond dispute, not only notbeyond dispute between the parties involved but in the minds of jurists and evenin the mind of the appropriate authority of the United Nations itself, because hegoes on to say that the International Law Commission "reserved consideration ofthe question what would be the legal position of straits forming part of theterritorial sea of one or more States and constituting the sole means of access tothe port of another State." This description, says the Secretary-General, appliesto the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran, and he adds that a legalcontroversy exists as to the extent of the right of innocent passage through thesewaters.

The Secretary-General himself having said that this problem is one of longduration, that it must be treated on its own and that there are legal problems, andwhen we have the authority of the International Law Commission that thatCommission itself has not made up its mind on the matter, there can be no

question that the present draft resolution seeks to resolve the question. It mustbe considered, if the parties are willing to consider it, or if other circumstancesarise. Therefore this draft resolution does not regard this problem as covered bythe present operation. The present operation is merely to move the invadingforces from the area to which reference has been made.

In paragraph 4, the draft resolution requests the Secretary-General, inconsultation with the parties concerned, to carry out the measures specifiedtherein and to report to the General Assembly. That is a normal request to theSecretary-General and it again points out that the co-operation of the parties inthe implementation of the resolution is required. I have thus made it quite clearwhat, in our view, and what, in the view of this draft resolution, the functions ofthe United Nations Emergency Force are. And I should like to add that it is notpossible to extend or modify those functions in any way without the consent ofanother party.

Paragraph 29 of the Secretary-General’s report is helpful to an understanding ofthis draft resolution. It specifies that Israel troops, on their withdrawal from theSharm El Sheikh areas, would be followed by UNEF "in the same way as inother parts of Sinai." That is to say, there is no difference whatever of category,kind or quality with regard to this process. The paragraph continues:

"The duties of the Force in respect of the cease-fire and the withdrawalwill determine its movements. However, if it is recognised that there is aneed for such an arrangement, it may be agreed" - and the key word is theword "agreed" - "that units of the Force (or special representatives in thenature of observers) would assist in maintaining quiet in the area beyondwhat follows from this general principle."

Now there is nothing new in that, because it is open to those who have theauthority for the United Nations Force on the one side, namely, the UnitedNations itself, represented by the Secretary-General, and the territorial Power onthe other side, to come to any agreement they wish. The paragraph goes on tosay that "the Force should not be used so as to prejudge the solution of thecontroversial questions involved" - and whatever controversies have been ragingduring the last seven or eight years, the Force is not a solvent for that purpose, itis merely an evacuating force with a temporary purpose unless, as in the casewhere it is put in on the armistice line for security purposes, it has assumedsomething different. Thus, it is "not to be deployed in such a way as to protectany special position on these questions, although, at least transitionally, it mayfunction in support of mutual restraint in accordance with the foregoing."

To summarise therefore, I would say, first of all, there are two separate draftresolutions. The first is not conditional on the second, but the second certainlycannot have any value unless the first is operative. Secondly, the first draftresolution represents an attempt by the Assembly for, I think, the fifth or sixth

time, and three months after its initial attempt, and therefore the words "withoutfurther delay" mean "withdrawal forthwith." And when that withdrawal iscompleted, then it will be possible for what is set out in the second draftresolution to be proceeded with. Those procedures must be governed by theprinciples that have been set out, which I have read, and the placement of theForce can only be on the armistice demarcation line, and its placement in anyother area or for any period of time must be dependent upon the consent of theterritorial sovereign Power and also upon the exigencies as decided by theUnited Nations Command on its side.

We believe that the Assembly should adopt these draft resolutions and convey tothe invading country that the time has passed when it is right, appropriate or inthe interests of the country itself - and the United Nations does not consider anymatter except in the interests of all member States - to delay further. It may bethat one member State is on the wrong side of a question; another member Statemay not be on the wrong side; but these solutions are always intended for thefurtherance of the purposes of the Charter.

Therefore it is my submission that the implementation of the first resolution is inthe interests of all parties concerned, including the invading Power. MyGovernment deeply regrets that even before the draft resolution has beenconsidered by the Assembly there have been reports, which may not be accurate- I hope they are not - that this will not be complied with. In the intervalbetween the last resolution and this one, we also have the report of a statementby the Prime Minister of Israel with regard to the withdrawal of these troopswhich also must cause us all concern. In spite of all that, the Assembly,expressing its regret by the word "deplores," asks Israel to complete itswithdrawal behind the armistice demarcation line forthwith.

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, March 1, 195765

[In this speech before returning to India, Mr. Menon elaborated on the Indianposition as regards the issues covered in General Assembly resolution 1124 (XI)of February 2, 1957. The withdrawal of Israeli forces was completed soon after,on 8 March.]

My delegation takes part in this debate four weeks after the adoption of resolution1124(XI), which was placed before the General Assembly on February 2, 1957and which called upon the invaders of Egypt, in this particular instance Israel, towithdraw from Egypt and Egyptian-controlled territory.


It is common knowledge that at that time it was the intention of the majority ofthe members that supported this resolution that a further resolution should beadopted setting a time limit for the withdrawal. However, at that time, in view ofthe late hour, no such draft was put forward. It was generally understood that theword "forthwith" would not mean three or four weeks.

It is true that we are all representatives of our Governments and that it makes nodifference as to which individual speaks for one Government or another.However, I should like to make a personal explanation. I have delayed mydeparture from the United States day after day for the last several days, cancellingmy passage in the hope that my country and my Government might be able togive further assistance in finding a solution to the problem before us, thusdisposing of this item by the final withdrawal of Israel from Egypt and Egyptian-controlled territory. That hope has not been justified.

We heard a statement from this rostrum at the 664th meeting by the representativeof Israel that a statement will be made by his delegation at the meeting thisafternoon. This is the first time that such a procedure has been adopted in theAssembly. It is not necessary for a representative to come and say that astatement will be made; the usual procedure is to inscribe one’s name on the listof speakers. In that way we would be informed. It is only reasonable to say thatan announcement to the effect that a statement will be given does not furtherinform our minds.

My objective in coming here is to place before the Assembly without anyambiguity, the position of my Government on the subject matter of resolution1124(XI) and the central issue which it covers. First of all, let me state what thatissue is. That issue is not the Israel-Arab disputes. That issue is not all theprocedures that arise from the establishment of the mandate in Palestine, or fromthe resolutions of 1947, or from the Armistice Agreements of 1949, or from theseries of Security Council resolutions. That issue is one and one only: that amember State, namely Egypt, was invaded by three countries, namely, the twopowerful empires of the United Kingdom and France, and Israel, which, indisregard of the principles of international morality and law, invaded the territoryof Egypt. Afterwards however, the United Kingdom and France maderecompense for their action by their obedience to the resolutions of the UnitedNations with far greater promise than this smaller and newer country has shown.

My country recognises Israel. It recognises Israel not only as a member of theUnited Nations, but it also recognises Israel diplomatically. And we are happy tosay that it recognises us. Therefore, the issue before us is one and one only: thequestion of this war, the invasion of Egypt. I do not mean for a moment to saythat any issue in this world can be totally isolated from various relationships. Butany decision that the Assembly can take can be only in regard to this matter. Forone thing, all the other questions are so complex, so far-flung and so broad thatthey would require very considerable negotiation and adjustment.

As regards the liquidation of the situation created by the invasion, it appearedmore hopeful that the situation between the Arab countries and Israel wouldimprove and that some way might be found, not necessarily to settle thedifficulties, but to do away with some of them. But the events of the autumnintervened. Now those events of the autumn are the total responsibility, and Iwould say the primary responsibility, of Israel for having carried out the invasion,and for having effected it conjointly with the two powerful empires in the hope ofcrippling a weak country - a militarily weak country, but not a morally weak one -in comparison to the two powerful empires.

Therefore, the operative part of resolution 1124 (XI), in which the GeneralAssembly "calls upon Israel to complete its withdrawal behind the armisticedemarcation line without further delay," is what binds all of us, and it is our dutyto have this provision implemented. We in India have lived under invasion forcenturies. We have witnessed invasions, and therefore we share the feelingswhich were exhibited at the previous meeting by Mr. Fawzi, Minister for ForeignAffairs of Egypt, for the first time in four months of patient discussion. It is theduty of the Assembly, which includes India and seventy-nine other members, tosee that there should be no further delay in this matter...

I should like to think that the Government of Israel will come to the meeting thisafternoon and say that it has at long last decided to obey the mandate and thedictate of the General Assembly. In spite of all that has happened, it is right forus to think that a member State will, in the last analysis, obey the mandate of theAssembly. These resolutions are very clear. It is therefore on that basis that Iproceed.

However, in view of the large number of speculations that have arisen, in view ofa certain paragraph that appeared in the Secretary-General’s report, in view of thestatements made by the French Prime Minister and the suspicions that exist in themind of the victim of the aggression, which are very natural ones, and in view ofour sympathies with the victim of aggression, and the fundamental position whichmy Government holds that invasion should not pay, whatever it might be - that isto say, as a result of the invasion, one cannot reach the position to which Mr.Fawzi referred at the previous meeting, namely that instead of being the invadedcountry Egypt was being accused of aggression (we have some familiarity withthis position ourselves) - a further statement might be necessary.

I SHOULD THEREFORE LIKE TO REPEAT THE POSITION of myGovernment in regard to various matters connected with this question. I will takethem one by one.

One point relates to the evacuation of the Gaza strip and the functions of theUnited Nations Emergency Force. I have seen references to the effect that it is

possible for the United Nations to confer greater powers upon the United NationsEmergency Force. My Government disassociates itself from that statement. Thefunctions of the United Nations Emergency Force are governed by two factorswhich can only work concurrently. One factor is that the Assembly has to conferpowers upon the Force or to withdraw them; in other words, the Assembly issovereign in the matter. The other factor has to do with the sovereign rights ofEgypt. The presence and functioning of the Force in Egypt are governed by anagreement between the Secretary-General and the Government of Egypt [A/3375,annex], which has been repeatedly read out here and which I shall therefore nottake the time to read again. Any extension or contraction of the powers of theUnited Nations Emergency Force has to be governed by these two factors.

Secondly, we want to lay stress upon the fact, reference to which appears in theSecretary-General’s report [A/3512], that the functions of the Force, both in therest of the Sinai Peninsula and presumably in regard to the Gaza strip, would beexactly the same as in the other areas.

It is useful in this connection to recall to the Assembly what the functions of theUnited Nations Emergency Force are. Its functions are the obtaining of a cease-fire and the supervision of the withdrawal. They were restated when my countryparticipated in the Force and subscribed to the resolution. At no time could theForce be an occupying army; at no time could it take over from the invader.

So far as the Government of India is concerned, it desires to make a furtherstatement in this connection. Our relations with the United Kingdom, in spite ofpossible differences, are very close; there are bonds between us which cannot bedefined by constitutions, by resolutions, or things of that kind. It was therefore avery painful duty for us to come here and say that the invader could not makeconditions. We can take no lesser position in regard to another invader.Therefore, with regard to the Gaza strip, our position is that the invader musttotally evacuate, so that the conditions obtaining before the war will be restored.The functions of the United Nations Emergency Force would be exactly the sameas they were in other parts of the area. If there are to be any additions to thosefunctions, they must be the result of agreements between Egypt and the Secretary-General acting on behalf of the United Nations; such is the general basis of thefunctions of the Force.

My Government has subscribed to, and, in months gone by has taken somediplomatic initiative - it is no secret - in bringing about, the position that the Forceshould also assist the Observer Corps on the armistice line between Israel andEgypt. And it must be clear that the armistice line referred to is the boundary linebetween Israel territory and Egyptian territory. There can be no question of thatForce occupying Egyptian territory only. Our proposal in the beginning was that,for the placing of these troops, there should be equitable contributions of territoryfrom both sides. That is a proposition that is understood, and therefore it has notbeen included in the resolution.

That is our position in regard to the Gaza strip.

WE DEEPLY REGRET THE REFERENCES TO BELLIGERENCY, to theposition of the Straits of Tiran - the legal positions that appear in the Secretary-General’s report. The Secretary-General, as an organ of the United Nations, andwith the total freedom that he has as an independent organ, is fully entitled to saywhat he wants to say. But I think we have an obligation to read the whole of thisreport as one piece and not to pick out what suits one party and omit somethingelse.

Let me deal here with two ideas. First of all, the word "belligerency" has beenthrown about, and it is easy to arouse the sentiment, particularly among our LatinAmerican colleagues, that belligerency is hostile to the conception of the Charterof the United Nations. Of course belligerency is hostile to the conception of theCharter. So is war - although we are dealing with war. My Government desiresto state that an armistice is a condition of suspended war; it is not a condition ofpeace. Resolution 1125 (XI) asks for observance of the provisions of the GeneralArmistice Agreement of 1949 between Egypt and Israel. I have read theArmistice Agreement very carefully. I do not see in the Armistice Agreement of1949 any reference to belligerency anywhere.

It is true that a basic conception of international law is that, in conditions ofarmistice, hostile actions shall not be taken - and in law a hostile action isdifferent from an attitude of belligerency. But hostile actions or belligerency canonly be against the other party. That is to say, if Egypt were to undertake hostileactions against Israel, or vice versa, that would be an act of belligerency. But ifEgypt were to conduct actions on the streets of Cairo of which we, according toour conceptions of good taste, did not approve, that would not be an act ofbelligerency. Therefore, when we talk about acts of belligerency, we mustconsider to what territory those acts appertain.

That takes us to the question of these waters. Now, what does the Secretary-General say? Referring to a statement by the International Law Commission inregard to the question "what would be the legal position of straits forming part ofthe territorial sea of one or more States and constituting the sole means of accessto the port of another State," he says:

"This description applies to the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran. Alegal controversy exists as to the extent of the right of innocent passagethrough these waters." [A/3512 para 24].

That last sentence is conclusive. The moment the Secretary-General has stated -in so doing, giving weight to that opinion - that a legal controversy exists as tothe extent of the right of innocent passage through these waters, the right of

decision is taken out of our hands altogether. The General Assembly cannotdecide a legal controversy. I am not subscribing, however, to the statement thatthere is a legal controversy. All the existing evidence is on our side, that is onthe side that these waters are territorial waters. And the two countries concernedare the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Egypt. The entrance tothese waters is nine nautical miles wide, which is less than the twelve-mile limitwhich is relevant in this connection. The broadest area of these waters conformsto the twelve-mile territorial sea claimed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, onthe one hand, and Egypt, on the other. If there should be a dispute between theKingdom of Saudi Arabia and Egypt in regard to their respective territorialrights, that would be a different case.

I would therefore say that this is an inland sea, and it is too late in the day forEuropean countries - and, if I may say so with great respect, for the Republics ofSouth America - to take a view on this which is totally unconnected with theirown history.

A great luminary in England, Lord Fitzmaurice, stated on February 21, 1907, inthe House of Lords the position of the United Kingdom Government that onlybays with an entrance not more than six miles wide were to be regarded asterritorial. In the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries case, however, which wasdecided by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in 1910, the UnitedKingdom repudiated that position. The United States contended for itsaccuracy, but the Court refused to agree.

So far as other countries are concerned, France holds the Bay of Cancale to beterritorial, although its entrance is seventeen miles wide, and the entrance to theGulf of Aqaba is nine nautical miles wide. Before Newfoundland became partof Canada, the United Kingdom held that Conception Bay was territorial, andwe have no information that Canada has changed that position. The UnitedKingdom held that Conception Bay, Chaleur Bay and Miramichi Bay in Canadawere territorial, although the width between their headlands is twenty, sixteenand fourteen miles respectively. Therefore, in each case where there is an inlandsea of this character, where the entrance is larger than in the case of the Gulf ofAqaba, the United Kingdom and France have held it to be part of their ownterritories, just as though it was land.

Hudson Bay in Canada, which embraces about 580,000 square miles with anentrance fifty miles wide, is claimed to be a territorial bay of Canada. Norwayclaims Varangerfjord as territorial, although its entrance is thirty-two mileswide. The United States claims the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, as it doesother inlets of the same character, as territorial, although the entrance to one istwelve miles wide and the entrance to the other ten miles wide.

The Institute of International Law has voted in favour of the principle that a gulfor bay whose entrance is twelve miles wide or less constitutes territorial waters,

although it admits that those gulfs and bays with a wider entrance which havebeen considered territorial waters for more than one hundred years also have aterritorial character. As matters stand, it is doubtful whether many gulfs andbays are territorial. It is not only the United Kingdom, France and the UnitedStates that are concerned in this matter; there are other European countrieswhose skin will be touched if we are to have a general proposition disregardingfor this purpose the sovereign rights of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in thisconnection. There are other territorial bays in Europe. There is the Zuider Zee,which is Dutch. There is the Zalew Szececinski (formerly the Bay of Stettin) inthe Baltic and the Schelde in the North Sea. These are all territorial waters, butan international congress may decide these questions.

Now, what is the present position on this point? In fairness to the Secretary-General, it must be said that paragraph 28 of document A/3512, on which thewhole of this unnecessary argument has been concentrated, does not say what itis alleged to say. This is what it says:

"As a conclusion from paragraph 24-27" - which is a discussion of thewhole of this problem - "it may be held" - he does not say it should beheld - "that, in a situation where the armistice regime is partly operative byobservance of the provisions of the Armistice Agreement concerning thearmistice lines, possible claims to rights of belligerency would be at leastso much in doubt that, having regard for the general international interestat stake, no such claim should be exercised in the Gulf of Aqaba and theStraits of Tiran."

Now, first of all, this statement is an expression of a hope. Secondly, with greatrespect to the Secretary-General, it is based on the false conception that theexercise of sovereign rights in a sovereign territory, in territorial waters, is an actof belligerency. Such an exercise of sovereign rights would be no more an actof belligerency than if it were an act on the highways of Cairo. It would be anact of belligerency if it were committed anywhere else. Therefore, in thesubmission of my Government, the statement is based on that false conception.

Over and above that, the Secretary-General quite rightly tells us that "possibleclaims to rights of belligerency" are "so much in doubt." If they are so much indoubt, how can we, by resolution, by newspaper articles, by assurances or byanything of that kind, deal with this problem? So far as we are concerned, Iwould go so far as to suggest that if it was right during the days of the OttomanEmpire for the Khedive of Egypt to enter into an agreement with France to cutacross the Isthmus of Suez, destroy the land and make it into a sea - nobodythought that was against international law - then it would equally be possible forEgypt, in agreement with Saudi Arabia, to fill up the Gulf of Aqaba. I shouldlike to ask: what international authority could challenge that?

This does not mean that, in the interests of international peace, there is not an

obligation upon every party concerned, including my own country, to assist insuch ways as are possible to maintain good behaviour. My good friend, therepresentative of the United States referred to the fact that Japanese ships - and,I suppose, Russian ships - sail up the Hudson and, therefore, there is freedom.But that is a freedom subject to consent. Mr. Lodge invites me to his apartmentand I go there, but that does not mean that I have the right to occupy it.

These are territorial waters, and I want to utter a note of warning - that is to say,I do not want to warn anybody, but I want this thought to be raised in the mindsof people. Hard cases make very bad law, and there are too many inlets andgulfs in the world. If France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway,Germany, and certain countries in Latin America, particularly Nicaragua and E1Salvador, will only refer to the relevant decisions of the international courts inthis matter, they will begin to realise that, especially in a continent where onecountry, I will not say which, claims 200 miles of territorial sea, in the presentstate of international law territoriality is merely a unilateral declaration. Somecountries give the distance on the territorial sea as three miles, others say twelvemiles, and there is the country that has said 200 miles, and nobody has objectedto it. Nobody could. Therefore, the only way to solve this problem is not bythreats or by suggestions - which, fortunately, have not come from anyresponsible Government - of forcing passage through or of test cases, oranything of that kind, which would only lead to the precipitation of the crisis inthe Middle East.

My country - and the Arab nations do not like us to say this - hopes and trustsand looks forward to the time when, whatever the rights and the wrongs of theIsrael-Arab disputes, these problems will be resolved in some form so that theArab countries can turn their attention to their economic development and whenthe vast quantity of money that comes from the international world for thearming of the State of Israel will also be diverted to the development of under-developed areas. That is our hope; but to express a hope and to work for it is notto deny the sovereign rights of someone else, and that is our position with regardto the Gulf of Aqaba. If it were true that passage could be forced in one place,passage could also be forced in another place.

IT IS NECESSARY FOR ME TO REFER, with some sadness, to thecircumstances which have prevented my delegation from participating in thedebate earlier. It is common knowledge that the United States delegation hasbeen exercising considerable initiative and deploying its energy in vast measurein order that the implementation of resolution 1124 (XI) of February 2, 1957,would no longer be delayed. My Government has assisted in this process. Weare a far-off country, and a small country in terms of power, but we have, as faras we could, with the common connection that we have with the Arab countriesand with more understanding of their position, placed ourselves at their disposal.It is necessary for me to state this in order to state the position of my

Government. We have no knowledge whatsoever, either from the Egyptiandelegation in New York or from our mission in Cairo, that there has been anyconsultation with the Egyptian Government in regard to the alleged agreementthat might have been reached between the Government of the United States, theGovernment of France and the Government of Israel.

I do not even say there are such agreements, because in these matters we cannotgo by newspaper reports. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, we are notinvolved in any of these matters. We are involved in finding a solution. If it sohappens that the statement that the Israel delegation is being good enough tomake this afternoon is of the same character as the statements made by theGovernments of France and the United Kingdom, and that it terminates thesituation, we would be happy. If it is not, however, then the duty of theAssembly is to proceed to other measures; and in that, my Government will givethe United States Government every possible assistance in order to implementits original intention which it voiced before the Security Council. I have saidthis not in order to disclose any private conversation, but merely in order toremove any suggestion that we are partners in any secret diplomacy.

This takes me, before I leave the question of the Gulf of Aqaba, to the legalposition as it stands today. There are no final decisions on this position, as hasbeen pointed out by the Secretary-General himself in his report [A/3512], wherehe says that the International Law Commission has left this matter rather indoubt and that it must be decided some other time. But I have read out to theAssembly the legal authority that exists. However, in the United Nations, theInternational Law Commission has taken this matter under consideration. TheCommission pointed out, in article 16 (duties of the coastal State) of its Articlesconcerning the Law of the Sea, that the coastal State - or the coastal States, andin this particular case, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - must not hamper innocentpassage through the territorial sea [A/3159].

This is the normal law; it is the normal law anywhere. It is the normal law inany country that if a national of another country goes there, the Head of the Stateoffers every facility that must be expected. That is the code of internationalbehaviour, according to article 16 of the International Law Commission’sArticles concerning the Law of the Sea.

But article 16 is bound by article 17, because while article 16 states the generalposition, article 17 refers to the rights of protection of the coastal State. In thiscondition of armistice, in the conditions that have prevailed during the last tenyears, article 17, therefore, becomes important. What does that article say? Itsays the following:

"1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea toprotect itself against any act prejudicial to its security or to such other ofits interests as it is authorised to protect under the present rules and other

rules of international law." [A/3159].

A further paragraph in the same article reads as follows:

"3. The coastal State may suspend temporarily in definite areas of itsterritorial sea the exercise of the right of passage..."

Therefore, this right of innocent passage, so-called, actually means that, first ofall, one must prove innocence. Innocence depends upon the character of theparty claiming the passage; it depends upon the purpose of the passage, and alsoupon the freight that is carried. I am sure that the Government of France will bethe first to support the idea of the right to search of freight, even though we donot uphold particular actions taken by it. The paragraph continues:

"...if it should deem such suspension essential for the protection of therights referred to in paragraph 1."

That is, its security. The paragraph continues: "Should it take such action, it isbound to give due publicity to the suspension." I do not think that anyone cancomplain in this case that there has been any lack of publicity. The nextparagraph of the article reads as follows:

"4. There must be no suspension of the innocent passage of foreign shipsthrough straits normally used for international navigation between twoparts of the high seas."

That particular clause does not apply to the Gulf of Aqaba because that Gulfdoes not connect two high seas - unless we suggest that there is an interimconnection through the atmosphere or through the land. It is not as though theMediterranean Sea and the Red Sea were connected by the Suez Canal in thatway; for, of course, the Suez Canal has another characteristic, that of an artificialwaterway. Therefore, that does not apply.

This is the legal opinion as it stands today. It is quite true that the InternationalLaw Commission concludes that we must have all this properly consideredbecause there are many other difficulties in this question, and the Commissionhas left the matter for further consideration. But, so far as the law can be stated,that is how it stands today, and it applies to all the European countries, whichhave fought many wars on this question. And what is more, if their interestswere affected, they would repudiate it, as the United Kingdom repudiated LordFitzmaurice's statement before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1910, andwould moreover claim territorial rights, whether over Hudson Bay, ChesapeakeBay, or the Bay of Cancale. This question is very important to all thesecountries. Otherwise, it simply means that, in difficult and troubled times, acountry can have a Trojan horse within its territory. What would happen to theScandinavian countries, with their large number of enormous fjords on their

coasts? Therefore, while the immediate hard conditions may lead to theiroverlooking these matters, this is the position. And my Government, therefore,restated this position in regard to the Gulf of Aqaba.

WITH REGARD TO THE WITHDRAWAL, it is not sufficient, in the opinionof my delegation, for a statement to be made that withdrawal will take place.The question depends upon when the withdrawal will take place, and howcomplete it will be. Also, no such withdrawal will prejudice any claims, anyquestions, that the United Nations may have to raise, or any issue which theparties may have to raise in respect of the damage done during the periodbetween the cease-fire and the withdrawal itself. Therefore, if, as I fondly hope,there will be a statement this afternoon that, in view of international opinion, inview of the opinion inside Israel itself, a decision has been made to withdrawunconditionally from the invaded territory, that decision would have to beimplemented, and the General Assembly would have to exercise its vigilance inregard to implementation.

It is not sufficient for us to obtain an assurance that there will be withdrawal andthen leave the matter to the United Nations Emergency Force, which has onlythe right of supervision, and which has no right of forcing evacuation. Wewould not want our troops to fight either Arabs or Israelis and, therefore, theForce’s position is merely that of supervision. There must be, therefore, properprovision for reporting to the General Assembly within a very reasonable time,over the weekend perhaps, that withdrawal has been accomplished. I quote theposition taken by Mr. Lodge in this matter some time ago that it is easier towithdraw now than it was when the British and French withdrew because all thearrangements are there...

The relevant passage of the aide-memoire of the Secretary-General66 reads asfollows:

"The Government of Egypt and the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations have stated their understanding on the basic points for thepresence and functioning of UNEF as follows:

"1. The Government of Egypt declares that, when exercising its sovereignrights on any matter concerning the presence and functioning of UNEF, itwill be guided, in good faith, by its acceptance of the General Assemblyresolution 1000 (ES-I) of 5 November 1956.

"2. The United nations takes note of this declaration of the Government ofEgypt and declares that the activities of UNEF will be guided, in goodfaith, by the task established for the Force in the aforementioned

66 A/3375, annex, setting out the agreement between the Secretary-General of the United Nationsand the Egyptian Government

resolutions; in particular, the United Nations, understanding this tocorrespond to the wishes of the Government of Egypt, reaffirms itswillingness to maintain the UNEF until its task is completed."

Therefore, there can be no question, either in the Sharm el Sheikh area or in theGaza area, of any army of occupation. All that can be accomplished is completeevacuation. If this afternoon at three o’clock, by the grace and generosity of theIsrael Government and the persistent endeavours of the Government of theUnited States and its President, we are able to hear a statement that there will bean unconditional withdrawal, I am sure that the General Assembly will bedelighted. But at the same time, in view of its experience, it would be apt to say,like Oliver Cromwell: "Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powderdry." We still would have to exercise our vigilance; we would have to seeperformance in this case, and not only promises.

My Government has an interest in this matter in view of the sufferings of theinvaded country, in view of our allegiance to the Charter and, what is more, inview of the practice that is developing in the United Nations of converting thevictim into the aggressor. Anyone who brings a complaint here and shows anyreasonableness very soon finds himself in the position of having done themischief himself. That has been our experience, at least in one instance, and wedo not want to see it repeated elsewhere.

I SHOULD NOW LIKE TO REFER TO THE JOINT COMMUNIQUÉ issuedon February 28, 1957, by the President of the United States and the PrimeMinister of France. My Government is in no position, and has no right, to saywhat they should issue and what they should not issue. But we have every rightto draw attention to some matters...

Unfortunately, these agreements and the present development have taken placein the context of a philippic delivered against nationalism, and I would like therepresentative of the United States particularly to listen to the fact.

For 4,000 years our part of the world had communications with Europe. Wegave Europe the origins of its languages, its science, its medicine and everythingelse. When I say "we gave Europe," I mean that in the course of history thosediscoveries passed that way. When we went through the process of history,Europe repaid us by the conquest of Alexander. Fortunately nature took its toll;he returned a conqueror, but with an empty victory.

Since that time, Europe has developed and nationalism has been established.Mr. Guy Mollet, Prime Minister of France, refers to exaggerated, fanatical formsof nationalism. With great respect, I say that I could not say more. I subscribeto the doctrine that nationalism in its exaggerated phases is an evil to the world.But what I want to ask is this: What is more exaggerated a phase of nationalism

than the attempt of a nation to plant its flag on someone else’s country?Imperialism is the most exaggerated form of nationalism. So I say to Mr.Mollet: Take a bit of your own medicine; it is good French medicine.Imperialism is the most exaggerated form of nationalism.

It does not lie in the mouth of conquering countries, whose history is repletewith tales of blood, to lecture to other people about exaggerated forms ofnationalism. For a thousand years we have lived under European domination.For the last three hundred years we have seen domination, ever since the fall ofConstantinople, when unfortunately the East sold spices to Europe and taught itspeople the art of cooking, and the Europeans first went in search of trade, andafterwards brought their soldiers in after them; and when the fortress ofConstantinople was destroyed, the empires were established and the Portuguesecame in, and by habit the Spaniards followed the Portuguese, and then the Dutchcame in, and the French after them, and the English after the French, and then,later, the Germans, establishing spheres of influence from the Yellow Sea towhat is now Istanbul.

We have suffered from these things, and for the first time in 4,000 years nearly1,700 million people of the world are shaking off the shackles of racialdomination. We refuse to submit to it. We would rather die on our feet thanlive on our knees. And I appeal to the representatives of the United States tounderstand the sentiment of our peoples. If the United States does not, then itcasts its lot with the imperial countries whose sun has set, because where there isnot righteousness, there will be no victory.

The cause of Egypt is not the cause of Arab misbehaviour or of good behaviour.There are many things on which we probably would have acted differently.Egypt is a sovereign Government entitled to act in the manner it deems best.We have no quarrels with Israel. We, unlike the Arab countries, recognise thatcountry. But we are not prepared to accept the statement that the future of theworld lies in the re-establishment of empire over Africa, under this cross-gainconception which, as I said, has neither pride of ancestry nor hopes of progeny,like the proverbial mule. It is merely a new imperial conception, a conceptionbased upon force, a conception based upon the erasing of the self-expression ofthe peoples in that great continent.

The attempts - and I would exempt the United Kingdom from this because itspolicy is the reverse of this connection - by the empires of France or Portugal orBelgium, or any other country, to maintain their stranglehold on subjectpopulations would be resisted by us with our weakness; and our weaknessprobably is stronger than their strength, because our weakness is based upon thespirit and determination of peoples to be free.

Therefore, it is with very deep regret that we find that there is an identity ofthought, very vaguely expressed, in this joint communiqué issued by the Prime

Minister of France and the President of the United States. But that only is thepenumbra, the background, of the present development. What hurts us, whatcreates concern in our minds, is the paragraph in the communiqué which refersto the solution of the problems of the Middle East. I take the liberty of readingthe following:

"With reference to the Middle East, they stated their common convictionthat solutions to the problems of the area can be achieved by peacefulmeans, in conformity with the principles of justice and international law."

This is the first time that one of the great Powers has in a declaration omittedany reference to the Charter of the United Nations. The United Kingdom, invarious agreements and even, I believe, in the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement,introduced the words "the Charter of the United Nations." Whether they observeit or not is another matter. But this is the first time that there has been anomission with regard to the Charter of the United Nations.

In the context of the violation of justice and international law by invasion by oneside, this statement by itself, to put it very mildly, is inadequate. We thereforesense in this a return to secret diplomacy and agreements to which the UnitedNations may not be a party.

But it may be that all these things will resolve themselves. My Governmentfully shares the conviction and the hope that the solutions to these problems canbe reached peacefully.

That takes me to the last point. Our colleagues from Canada, with whom wehave the closest and the friendliest of relations and a great deal of similarity, andsometimes identity of thought, have from the very beginning, it must be said infairness to them, taken the view that the present crisis - the war, the invasion -should be utilised to solve what is called the Middle Eastern problem. Ofcourse, I do not know what the Middle Eastern problem is; there are so manyproblems. At any rate, the representative of Canada’s main reference is to theArab-Israel problem. It is the view of my Government, as I said a while ago,that there must be a solution to these problems sometime, somehow, but it canonly be found in co-operation and in terms of coexistence and of the recognitionof the legitimate rights of the sovereignties of people. What is more, it has to bea gradual process. First things first, and the first thing is what the GeneralAssembly has already sought to accomplish by resolution, namely, to maintainthe armistice in conditions of peace by insulating the frontier and bystrengthening the Observer Corps.

To try to use the invasion, the fruit of the invasion, as a part of this book ofinvasion with a chapter on settlement is incongruous. Therefore, any attemptsuch as that which the Canadian Government seems to be so insistent upon,namely, to try and build into this problem a specific solution, is to try to mix oil

and water - and they will not mix.

We have every hope that, if Israel withdraws completely and there is no furthertrouble about it and if the welling of public opinion in France brings about agreat change in its present imperial positions, then it is possible that thefunctioning of the United Nations Emergency Force on the armisticedemarcation line would be a pilot project which would assist in the eliminationof the suspicions and the inevitable conflicts that arise when two hostile forcesare ranged one against the other. Afterwards, that procedure may by consent beapplied to other areas. But however that may be, these are things that have to betaken in their stride, and any attempt to try to bite off more than we can chew atthe present time and to go away from the fundamental problem that is before us- which is not the Arab-Israel question - would not be advisable.

We have not consulted other Arab countries about this. Egypt has no right tospeak on their behalf. We are now trying to resolve a war and a war situationwhere the territory of Egypt has been invaded. It would have been a differentposition if, in the course of the invasion, all the other Arab countries had joinedtheir forces and had gone into active military alliance and opposed it.

This is not to say that the Government of India desires to stand in the way of anyprogress towards a settlement, but we want to express our apprehension at theattempts to use the weaker position of the country against which aggression hasbeen committed - that is to say, not morally weaker, but weaker because of theimpact of the invasion - and to use the great power of other great countries inorder to solve problems that have been subsisting for ten years and whichinvolve many issues. This would be impractical.

We should like to say that considerable efforts have been made during the pastfew days by the Egyptian delegation and, to our knowledge, by the United Statesdelegation to find a way whereby the Assembly could be invited with some hopeand some reason to resolve unanimously, if it became necessary, to put a finalstop to this chapter - I would not say this chapter, but this series of chapters - ofprevarication. It is in the interests of the people of Israel that this tension shouldstop. It is unthinkable that, whatever may happen in the next day, in the next tendays or in the next ten years, the population of Israel could live in the MiddleEast except in terms of friendship with the Arab countries. That is what we haveto seek to promote, and my country is dedicated to that task.

THE QUESTION OF HUNGARY


[The situation in Hungary was brought up before the United Nations SecurityCouncil - by France, the United Kingdom and the United States - on October 27,1956, following intervention by Soviet military forces in repression of an uprisingin the country. The Council could take no action because of a veto by the SovietUnion, and an emergency special session of the General Assembly was convenedon 4 November to consider the matter.

On the same day, on the proposal of the United States, the General Assemblyadopted resolution 1004 (ES-II) calling upon the Soviet Union to desistforthwith from all armed attack on the people of Hungary; and requestingthe Secretary-General to investigate the situation and report with suggestionson methods to bring to an end the foreign intervention in Hungary.

The following speech by Mr. Menon was an explanation of India’s abstention onthe resolution.]

On November 4, the Assembly adopted resolution 1004 (ES-II) in regard to thesituation in Hungary. My delegation abstained in the voting on this resolution. Iwant to say here and now that the abstention of my delegation was not due to lackof instructions or any other difficulties. It arose from the nature of this subjectand the nature of the resolution before us. We abstained because we agreed withsome parts of it, but did not agree with others. Therefore, we are not by ourabstention proclaiming our unconcern or lack of interest in this matter.

Often, those who understand but little of the approach and the policy of myGovernment and country to the affairs of nations choose to dub us a neutral. Weare not neutral where human freedom is concerned.

The situation in Hungary has been a cause of grave anxiety to our Governmentand has caused much concern among our people. However, we have to recognisethe fact that that concern has to be expressed in terms such as those of paragraph 3in this resolution, which states that the Hungarian people should have agovernment which is "responsive to its national aspirations and dedicated to itsindependence and well-being."

So far as my Government is concerned, the State of Hungary is a member State ofthe United Nations and even with all the emotional environment that surrounds

67 Official Records of General Assembly, Second Emergency Special Session, Plenary Meetings,pages 44-45

the present tragic situation, we may not forget the sovereign rights of a sovereignState in the Assembly. We may not refer to a member State as though it werestruggling for its independence. Our sympathy is with the people of any countrywho have struggled to attain their national independence and desire to retain it.The use of force and violence by governments or by people, whether inside acountry or against another country, is reprehensible and entirely contrary to theoutlook and the approach of my Government and country, and this attitude appliesequally to the affairs of its own people and to those of other nations.

We have received with interest and with hope the announcement of the SovietGovernment that it proposes to withdraw its troops from Hungary. It is thefervent hope of my Government that this announcement will be implemented.

The draft resolution that was before the Assembly on 4 November containedmany parts which, if they had been put individually to the vote, we would havesupported. But since the draft contained a number of other matters to which wewere not able to lend our support, we abstained on it. Therefore, our position inthis matter is that we do not regard the issue of freedom as conditioned bydistance from our capital or by the race or complexion of the people involved; weregard this issue as universal.

Here, however, in this political gathering, we are trying to find ways and means ofresolving difficulties. It is the considered view of our Government that anythingthe General Assembly does must be directed to that end. It is probably wellknown that, both in regard to this problem and to a problem with which we aremore familiar, the invasion of Egypt, the Government of India has during theselast anxious weeks attempted to use its power of persuasion in quarters where itmay be useful to bring about some amelioration of the present situation.

My Prime Minister only the other day, in referring to this matter, spoke of thesuppression of freedom in various places and mentioned Hungary in thatconnection. That is the position of my Government...

Finally, the purpose of my explanation of vote is to make clear that we areprepared at all times to use such influence and such energies as we have in thepromotion of human liberty. We fully support parts of this resolution, particularlythe first paragraph of the preamble, stating that "the United Nations is based onthe principle of the sovereign equality of all its members." The GeneralAssembly cannot in any circumstances, whether it considers the action underdiscussion right or wrong, disregard the sovereign rights of members. India isagainst the intervention of any government or of any outside authority in theaffairs of States from whatever quarter it may come and whatever form it maytake; whether it be subversion or obversion makes no difference.

We are equally in support of the second paragraph of the preamble, which refersto human rights and fundamental freedoms.

We are not qualified to speak upon the Peace Treaty between Hungary and theAllied and Associated Powers at this stage.

We are fully in support of the right of the Hungarian people to choose the form ofgovernment it desires; this is inherent in its sovereignty and in its membership ofthe United Nations. It is our view that in dealing with a member State the GeneralAssembly cannot deal with the problem in the same way as in the case of acolonial country, where the people have no representation.

I hope that the explanation I have made makes it quite clear where India stands onthis matter. We stand for the freedom of peoples. We are against foreigndomination in any country. We anticipate with hope and with confidence that theSoviet Government, having announced its intention to withdraw its troops fromHungary, will implement that declaration soon.

I am also at liberty to say that our own Government, in such ways as are open toit, seeks to further the purposes that are inherent in the thoughts and minds of allof us.

Finally, whatever the different views we may have in the Assembly, there is noone here who, by his speech or by his vote, has indicated that he disregards or iscallous to any situation where violence seeks to oppress freedom or to drive acountry into a state of anarchy. The great expression of public opinion from allsides of the Assembly will itself be a contribution to the solution of the difficultproblem before it and will help to enable the independent country of Hungary toresolve its problems and to have ensured to it all the conditions of existence thatare envisaged in the Charter of the United Nations.


[The Secretary-General formally communicated the Assembly resolution of 4November to the Governments of Hungary and the Soviet Union. But soon after,in Hungary, the Government headed by Imre Nagy was replaced by aGovernment headed by Janos Kadar. The credentials of the Hungarian delegationto the General Assembly were challenged and the Assembly decided to take nodecision pending further clarification.

Discussion of the situation in Hungary continued before the Secretary-Generalwas able to make a report on the resolution of 4 November. Cuba, Ireland, Italy,Pakistan and Peru presented a draft resolution to call upon the Soviet Union to

68Official Records of the General Assembly, Second Emergency Special Session, PlenaryMeetings, pages 68-69

withdraw its forces from Hungary, and to declare that free elections should beheld in Hungary under the auspices of the United Nations. The United Statesmoved another draft resolution concerning assistance to refugees from Hungary;India, together with Ceylon and Indonesia, submitted amendments to deletereferences to political aspects in that draft.

The following speech of Mr. Menon was devoted to the two draft resolutions andthe amendments.

On 9 November, the Assembly rejected the amendments and adopted the two draftresolutions as resolutions 1005 and 1006 (ES-II).]

The General Assembly has before it a number of draft resolutions, theamendments to one of the draft resolutions presented by the delegations of Ceylonand Indonesia together with my own delegation, and there is also pending theresolution of November 4, 1956 [1004 (ES-II)]. I should like to deal with theresolutions which are before us today in the order in which they have beensubmitted.

There is first of all the five-Power resolution (A/3316) which deals in substancewith the situation in Hungary. With regard to that draft resolution, the position ofmost delegations has already been stated, because that draft resolution deals withthe subject matter covered by the resolution of 4 November.

I should like to reiterate what I said from this rostrum yesterday. Havingconsidered the position in Hungary, the Assembly passed a resolution whichrequested the Secretary-General to make certain investigations and report to it.That resolution is still pending. We are told and the Secretary-General hasinformed us that he is not in a position to make that report. It appears to me in thenormal course of things entirely an unusual proceeding to go on to otherdecisions. The decision of the Assembly of 4 November is, on the face of it, aclear indication that the Assembly wants information. The Assembly wants toknow what the Secretary-General is able to do in these matters.

It is quite true that my delegation abstained on this resolution for the reasons I setout yesterday. But even though a delegation abstains on the vote, when aresolution is adopted it becomes the resolution of the Assembly. In our opinion,there is a duty cast upon the Assembly at least to conform to its own resolutionpassed only a few days ago. Therefore, we think that the five-Power draftresolution, apart from all other considerations to which I shall refer in a moment,is misconceived. We are not able to support it, and shall vote against it.

Secondly, in making this approach to the problem, my delegation desires tosubmit with respect that we are not giving sufficient thought and attention to theresolving of the problems and the difficulties that exist in Hungary at the present

moment. There is no one here who does not appreciate that there has beenfighting, suffering and unsettlement and that there is not the stability required.Any decisions that we adopt here must be directed to the improvement of thoseconditions. Furthermore, my delegation cannot subscribe at any time to anyphraseology or proposals before the Assembly which disregard the sovereignty ofStates represented here. For example, we cannot say that a sovereign member ofthis Assembly, admitted after due procedures, can be called upon to submit itselections and everything else to the United Nations without its agreement.Therefore, any approach that we make as though this is a colonial country whichis not represented at the United Nations, is not in accordance either with the lawor the facts of the position.

With regard to the subject matter, it has disturbed our minds and caused myGovernment and people a great deal of anxiety. As I said yesterday on thisrostrum, we have, as a Government, as all Governments do, the right to exert whatinfluence we have and make such approaches as are possible to assist in resolvingthis problem and to bring about a situation where the Hungarian people will beable to settle down to constructive tasks and enjoy their national independence.

I am to say that in the correspondence between the Prime Ministers of the SovietUnion and India, the last part of which was communicated from New Delhi andreceived here this afternoon, the Soviet Government informed us of adetermination to deal with its relationships with their neighbouring socialist Stateson the principles of mutual respect of their sovereignty, territorial integrity, andfriendship, co-operation and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other.This appears in the declaration of the Soviet Government of 30 October, and it isreiterated.

There is the problem of the Soviet troops. The Government of India is informedthat Soviet troops are to be withdrawn from Budapest in agreement with theHungarian Government as soon as order is restored. And the RussianGovernment intends to start negotiations with the Hungarian Government inregard to Soviet-Hungarian relations in conformity with this declaration.

It is entirely upto the Assembly to make its own decision with regard to thesematters. As far as our Government is concerned, we have made efforts in thisdirection with a view to attaining the ends that are put forward in theseresolutions. In agreement with Yugoslavia, Poland and other countries, who arevery near to Hungary and whose problems though not identical are of a similarcharacter, we think that we should not do things here merely out of emotion orother reactions or out of our political predilections, forgetting the interests of theHungarian people and of the Hungarian State. Therefore, any attitude which istaken which will retard this process of the withdrawal of troops and the settlingdown of the Hungarian people will be contrary to our general purposes.

For those reasons, we think that the five-Power draft resolution is not one which

we can support. We consider that it will not assist in the purposes in which theAssembly has interested itself...

We come now to the second draft resolution (A/3319) before us, which stands inthe name of the United States of America. This draft resolution is of an entirelydifferent category, and I would like to say that we are in agreement with itspurposes. If I am right, the purposes of this draft resolution are humanitarian, thatis, the relief of suffering. But a purpose always gets rather distorted whenmaterial that is relevant to other purposes is imported into it. Therefore, mydelegation while agreeing with the purposes as being in conformity with thegeneral approach towards relieving suffering, whatever may be the causes, hastried to remove from the United States draft resolution such parts as make itunacceptable to us, and to retain all the rest, even though we might not havephrased it in that way; that is to say, if my delegation and those who co-sponsoredthese amendments had to submit a draft resolution de novo, we might not haveadopted this phraseology. But we are anxious to retain as much of this draftresolution as we can and to take away from it only those things that have norelevance at all or may come in the way of its purposes.

It is our submission that the draft resolution as we seek to amend it meets thepurposes which the United States draft resolution has in view, without importinginto it other considerations and that it will achieve the end to which my colleaguefrom Indonesia has just referred, namely, to bring to this draft resolution a largerdegree and wider extent of support.

In regard to the whole question of the relief of suffering in conditions of war orconditions of civil disturbance, I should like to draw the attention of the Assemblyto the fact that these matters have been taken into consideration by the nations ofthe world and have led to the formulation of the Geneva Convention in regard to adisturbance of this character, whether the disturbance be a civil disturbance, acivil commotion, internal might be said - and therefore as coming within Article2, paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter - or an international war. It is thesubmission of my delegation that these matters of relief should be dealt with inaccordance with the Geneva Convention. If they are dealt with in accordancewith the Geneva Convention, the channelling of aid should be throughorganisations of a character which do not call into question the nature of that aidor its purposes or whether, in a packet containing medicaments, arms are going in,or anything of that kind. Therefore, in these circumstances, the aid should go tothe International Red Cross which would decide the local organs through whichtheir further transmission should take place.

I am sure that the Assembly will share the feeling of my delegation that we wereglad to hear this morning from the representative of Yugoslavia that theInternational Red Cross has not met with any resistance from any partyconcerned, and that the International Red Cross is functioning through theHungarian and Yugoslav Red Cross missions. Therefore, it is the appropriate

international authority free from political or national bias which conforms to theterms of the Geneva Convention, and is the appropriate authority to deal with thismatter.

While we have no desire to have a specific mention of this apart from whatappears in the draft resolution, half the trouble arising from political controversywould disappear if we would separate the humanitarian aspects from our ownpolitical objectives. That is why my delegation has moved these amendments,and I hope that after the statement that the representative of Indonesia has madeand that I have made - and that I am sure those who speak after me will make - itwill be seen that we are in agreement with the purposes and the motives that liebehind the United States draft resolution (A/3319). But we cannot agree with itsformulation; however, we are in agreement with the main purposes. We hope,therefore, that these amendments will find favour with the sponsor of the draftresolution...


[The situation in Hungary was considered by the eleventh regular session of theGeneral Assembly soon after it opened on November 12, 1956.

The Hungarian Government rejected the General Assembly resolutions on thesituation in Hungary claiming that they were in contradiction with the UnitedNations Charter. The settlement of the situation and the holding of elections, itheld, were entirely within the jurisdiction of Hungary and that the sending ofrepresentatives of the Secretary-General to Hungary was unwarranted. Itinformed the Secretary-General that it would begin negotiations with the SovietUnion for the withdrawal of troops after law and order was restored.

On 16 November, the Secretary-General appointed a three-man group, includingAmbassador Arthur Lall of India, to investigate the situation caused by foreignintervention in Hungary.

During the discussion in the Assembly, India, together with Ceylon and Indonesia,presented a draft resolution urging the Hungarian Government to accede to therequest of the Secretary-General to permit observers designated by him to enterthe territory of Hungary and travel freely therein. It was adopted on November21, 1956, as resolution 1128 (XI).]

My Government and our country have been very seriously concerned with the

69 Official Records of the General Assembly, Eleventh Session, Plenary Meetings, pages 166-70

developments in Hungary and the catastrophic consequences of violence in thatcountry. There have been statements made before this Assembly of a characterwhich does not correspond to the attitude of the Government of India or its peopleor, indeed, of the peoples of Asia as a whole, if we are any judges of it.

It is not always possible or necessary for a government to take an identical linewith another government, even though it may have strong views on any particularsubject. I shall not this morning try to rebut the observations that have beenmade, somewhat unjustifiably, for the simple reason that I am on this rostrum thismorning for the particular purpose of using our humble efforts in order to assist ina turn in the Hungarian situation whereby it will be possible, we hope, to urge theGovernment of Hungary to dispel the serious anxiety and concern and, in manyparts of the world, the revulsion of feeling that has arisen on account of thedevelopments there.

The approach that I make this morning is not by way of trying to controvertstatements, even when they have been made unjustifiably, in regard to ourselves.Therefore, while our draft resolution (A/3368) itself is concerned with a verysmall aspect of this problem, I would like to take a few minutes to state theposition of my delegation in this matter.

We stand, without any reservations, for the right of a people to have the form ofgovernment they desire and to order their own affairs in their own way, withoutany external pressures, from whatsoever quarter they may come. We do notbelieve that the basis of any modern government, of any civilised government,can rest on the power of arms from outside. We ourselves have had a longexperience of the capacity of people to resist that intervention, and when thepeoples of a country, irrespective of the amount of physical force that is appliedagainst them, are determined to say "no," those people are bound to succeed.

Therefore I want to express here the very grave anxiety that exists in our land, andour great desire to see this business not become a part of a general situation ofhostilities between camps of countries, but to move towards a solution. We havecondemned violence in unmistakable terms. We do not believe that thegovernment of any country should be based upon foreign intervention or upon thearmed might of any other country. From our own point of view, the existence offoreign forces in various countries in the world is inimical to the cause of peaceand progress.

We have not only expressed our sympathies for the grave suffering that exists inHungary, but our Government dispatched by air yesterday the first instalment ofsupplies for relief to Hungary, although we are a people greatly in need ourselvesand the demands for the relief of suffering in Egypt, which is closer to us, are asheavy as we can meet. This is a token expression of our desire to assist in thismatter.

We stand unqualifiedly by the sovereignty of Hungary, whose dismemberment wewould not wish in any way to assist; neither would we wish to have interventionby any party whatsoever. Equally, we stand by the right of the Hungarian peopleto shape their own destinies without outside interference. In a situation of thiskind, violence starts and it spreads all around. But no government can besustained by the power of a foreign army. The only governments that can besustained by the power of a foreign army are not governments but administrationsthat are of a dependent character.

Our history is one where a powerful country, with a mighty army and a mightypower, imposed its authority over us, and the unity and the will of our peoplealone, and not our armed might, was responsible for its displacement. Thereforewe look with sympathy to the populations of Hungary who are trying to unite and,I hope, to stand against elements of dismemberment, from whichever quarter theymay come, either from within or from without.

At the same time, the four Prime Ministers of what are known as the Colombocountries - that is, Burma, Ceylon, Indonesia and India - the other day issued astatement which is a considered statement of policy. They said the following:

"They regret that Soviet forces, which had been withdrawn in accordancewith the policy laid down in a statement issued by the Government of theSoviet Union on 30 October were reintroduced into Budapest a few dayslater. The Prime Ministers" - and this is the most important part of ourstatement - "consider it an inalienable right of every country to shape foritself its own destiny free from all external pressures. They are of theopinion that Soviet forces should be withdrawn from Hungary speedily,and that the Hungarian people should be left free to decide their ownfuture and the form of government they will have without externalintervention from any quarter."

That is our general position. But today we are dealing with a problem in regardto allegations that have been made in this Assembly on the one hand, anddenials on the other hand; and I want to assure you that it is not as though we sitdetached, unconcerned, by the reports on one side, and by the denials on theother, as though we were giving a Solomon's judgement, a kind of award in thismatter. We think, first, that there is a responsibility for the Assembly to expressitself in a restrained fashion, in order to obtain a settlement. Secondly, the mainconcern that we should have is to try to obtain, in terms of the decision of theGeneral Assembly, the introduction into Hungary of observers, and the goodoffices of the Secretary-General.

On 4 November, the General Assembly adopted a resolution [1004 (ES-II)].Since then, I have said on this rostrum that the position of my Government isthat this resolution must work itself out fully. The Secretary-General is on therostrum. On account of other preoccupations and his absence from the country,

we have not had the benefit of his oral communication to the General Assembly.But my delegation has taken the trouble, if it may be called trouble, to ascertainfor ourselves what is the status of the Secretary-General's intervention in thismatter, and he is here to correct me if I am wrong.

Our understanding is that the Secretary-General's efforts are by no meansterminated. Some progress has been made as far as we can see from thecorrespondence, and the attempts now must be devoted towards prising open,towards gaining an entry, into this situation, where the light and the impact ofinternational opinion will have a direct bearing upon the resolving of thesituation in Hungary.

It is for these purposes that the delegations of Ceylon, Indonesia and India havesubmitted the draft resolution before us...

Believing as we do that the tragic situation in Hungary, the violence that hashappened, the atrocities that have been committed, of which reports are beingreceived, have stirred public opinion very much in our part of the world, wethink that the binding up of these wounds can only begin if the process ofhealing takes place through the good offices of observation under the directionof the Secretary-General; so that instead of our approaching this problem merelyfrom the point of view of invectives, we would be able to proceed to aconstructive step.

The draft resolution that we have submitted is of a limited character. But webelieve a large volume of opinion, especially of countries which are notinvolved in the great Power groupings of the world, should be thrown behind therequest, the urging, that we are making to the Hungarian Government.

I would like to say from this rostrum that I hope that the people and theGovernment of Hungary, and those who are responsible for the state of affairsthere and for the conduct of government, will listen to the voice of thosecountries, and not say that they will take upon themselves the graveresponsibility of not listening to the appeal, to the request, to the urging, that weare making to them that the Secretary-General should be invited to go toHungary. The Hungarian Government should be met in its capital, and notoutside its country. That is our view. The office of the Secretary-General is aCharter organ of the United Nations. He has rights; he has obligations; he hasfunctions; he has a status of his own. Over and above any resolutions adoptedby the Assembly, the Secretary-General carries with him, wherever he goes, theresponsibilities of fulfilling, so far as it is assigned to him in the Charter, theimplementation of its purposes.

Therefore we hope by this resolution to convey to the Government of Hungarythe voice of large numbers of people, of millions of people in Asia and otheruncommitted countries, who join with the others, without any attempt at the

present moment to introduce words of condemnation, without in any wayinterfering with the process of settlement that may happen.

We should like to say that the Government of Hungary should be aware of thefact that, whatever might have been the situation a few days ago, there isrestoration of work, restoration to normality, according to the newspaper reports,and therefore an opportunity arises for it to revise - I should not say "revise"because, so far as I can see from the correspondence with the Secretary-General,there have been no categorical refusals so far - its attitude.

It is necessary, therefore, that our message should be conveyed to those who arein a position to act; and here we say in all seriousness that they should listen toour urging that United Nations observers appointed by the Secretary-General -who would be acting on behalf not of any one particular country or particulargroup and who, so long as he retains his office, retains the confidence not of onesection or another section of the United Nations, but of its entirety, howevermuch we may disagree with him on one aspect of things or the other - that suchpersons should be given the facilities, according to resolution 1004 (ES-II), "toenter the territory of Hungary, to travel freely therein, and to report theirfindings to the Secretary-General."

It is not the habit of my delegation to speak in terms of warnings, to speak interms of what will happen if something else does not happen, but I would befailing in my responsibility if I did not say here - and I hope that my voicereaches further - that the Government of Hungary will assume an extremelyheavy responsibility if it does not respond as quickly as possible to the urging, tothe request that we are making, a request which we are making not as part of apolitical grouping, but as expressing the feeling that is welling up all over theworld.

We have kept ourselves under restraint, without pronouncing judgement onevents which we have not been able to observe ourselves, and in spite ofwhatever newspaper criticism there may be, whatever epithets may be used, myGovernment and people will not shift to a position where we are called upon tocondemn without evidence. Even though we may believe something, even if allthe facts point towards that, even if there is what a magistrate calls a prima faciecase, we have, as a sovereign government in relation to another government, theresponsibility of permitting a judgement or an inference to be made on the basisof facts, and we are now asking in this draft resolution permission to do that,because there is a war situation. There is the absence of the means ofcommunication; foreign journalists in the country are few; the channels ofinformation, naturally, in those conditions dry up. Serious allegations are made,and equally sincere, or rather, equally deliberate, contradictions are made ofthem.

We are not saying, therefore, that we just sit back and pass judgement in time.

That is not our tradition. Our position is that the Hungarian Government is, inthe General Assembly resolution of 4 November, requested "to permit observersdesignated by the Secretary-General to enter the territory of Hungary, to travelfreely therein and to report their findings to the Secretary-General."

I want to state here and now that the Government of Hungary stands to profit bythis exercise. Let us assume, for argument's sake, that there is something tohide. But it is not possible, with a large number of International Red Crossworkers, with the state of communications in the world today, with, on theGovernment's own admission, people inside Hungary who are not in support ofthe administration, however much of a minority or a majority they may be, toseal up any country; and, therefore, to give the false or, from the HungarianGovernment's point of view, erroneous impression that there is an attempt to dothat is to work against the cause of Hungary itself.

Every statement which we have made from this rostrum has been directed not atgiving expression to some emotional state of mind, but at assisting in theresolving of this problem, and that is the purpose of this draft resolution. Wehad, perhaps naively, hoped that when a statement such as is contained in thisdraft resolution was made, there would have been no difficulty, even on the partof those who take the views that are expressed in the Cuban draft resolution, inaccepting this as a practical step towards, as I said, prising open the situation.

The present belief of my Government is that the Government of Hungary wouldnot disregard such a request, if it was made with the support of practically allsections of opinion in this Assembly and, I feel sure, so far as our draftresolution is concerned, without a single vote against it. It is my hope that novote will be recorded against this draft resolution, and if a resolution goes out ofthis Assembly without a vote against it and with a large number of delegationssupporting it, it is our belief that the Hungarian Government, especially in viewof the lapse of time and in regard to the functions recently performed by theSecretary-General in another connection, would take the first step of makingarrangements for the Secretary-General to visit Hungary and also to discuss withhim the question of permitting observers designated by him to enter the territory.

I want, in all humility, to ask this Assembly to understand the position of aGovernment that is called upon by the Secretary-General to assist in an impartialinvestigation. A few days ago, the Secretary-General asked the Government ofIndia whether it would assist in the investigations which he is making in hisoffice from such material as he may have at his disposal and, secondly, whetherwe would nominate any persons to form part of the observer team to go toHungary.

If the Government of India were callous about this, or if its mind had been madeup, or if it did not want to assist in the solution, the easiest thing for it, with allthe burdens which it has and with its very small capacity, would have been

respectfully to decline his request. But the Government of India contributed theassistance that was required for this investigation for which we did not requireany assent from the Government of Hungary. We have done so.

But with regard to sending observers into another territory, it is not possible toaccede, without authority from the territory, irrespective of all legal aspects, to arequest of that kind. So we told the Secretary-General that the moment theGovernment of Hungary acceded to the request that had been made to it in theresolution - asking that observers designated by the Secretary-General bepermitted to enter the territory of Hungary, to travel therein, and to report theirfindings to the Secretary-General - we would be prepared to send someonesuitable for this purpose.

Now I ask the General Assembly, in all conscience, if a country is called upon toparticipate in such investigations, would the Assembly not expect therepresentatives and the Government of that country to express themselves withrestraint on the events that have happened? Would any serious gathering ofpeople expect a member of an investigating body to go out of his way to expressopinions unless they were beyond all contravention? That is to say, theSecretary-General, I presume, asked the Government of India to contributeassistance in this way because, in his judgement - and we respect his judgementand are flattered by it, and probably from the previous history of India incontacts of this kind - he thought that we would render an objective account andassist in reaching an objective result.

Therefore we were restrained in dealing with the situation, but with one eye toassisting in a solution. That is the purpose of this draft resolution. What weshould be most concerned about is the continuance and deterioration of thissituation, and, whether we like it or not, when forces are as they are, the bestfunction we can perform is to assist in a transformation by injecting into thesituation the element that is envisaged in this draft resolution.

We have stated our position fully about the use of force, about the interventionof armed forces in the internal affairs of any country. We are not at the presentmoment going into the question of foreign forces in another country resultingfrom treaties or on account the system - which we do not approve - of militarypacts and alliances. That is another matter which does not come into it. But themaintenance of a government in a country by foreign forces, the position that agreat uprising of a people, whether bad or good elements enter into it, whether ittakes some ugly turn or not, can ever be suppressed by force of arms - that, inour view, is fallacious. What is more, our people have been very much movedlately by the kind of resistance without arms that is arising in Hungary, becauseit strikes a chord of remembrance in our own hearts, when a great and powerfulempire refused to listen to the voice of reason, because our people said "No."

No arms are powerful against a spirit of determination. That is what lies behind

this draft resolution. I want to ask once again, I want to appeal to this Assemblyto give this business an opportunity to take a turn for the better. I cannot speakfor the Hungarian Government. I cannot speak for anyone but my ownGovernment - and I want to assure you that I can speak for my Government.You may not think so if you read some of the newspapers. It is no use indulgingin wishful thinking in this matter. We should get the other party concerned intothe context of dealing with this. This cannot be done by two people who are inisolation from each other; that is the purpose of this draft resolution.

I hope that the Foreign Ministers and others who are here at this Assembly willsee the purpose of this and give this approach a chance. As I said, we haveassured ourselves that the Secretary-General by no means regards his efforts asterminated or that the door has been closed on this matter. I understand, if myinformation is correct, that conversations are going on even now between theSecretary-General and the Hungarian representative in this General Assembly.

I hope that as a result of the appeal that we are making, the representative ofHungary in this meeting will be able to tell us that he is willing to communicatethis resolution immediately to his Government. I think I am not committing anyact of impropriety when I say that the Government of India is using suchinfluence, such capacities as it has in the diplomatic field, to assist in thisprocess. That is the purpose that lies behind this draft resolution.

KOREA

[On June 25, 1950, the United Nations Security Council consideredcommunications from the United States and the United Nations Commission onKorea that North Korean forces had on that day invaded South Korea. It adopteda resolution calling upon North Korea immediately to cease hostilities andwithdraw its forces.

Two days later, following non-compliance by North Korea, the Council adopted aresolution recommending that members of the United Nations furnish necessaryassistance to South Korea to repel the armed attack. Several countries informedthe United Nations of their willingness to provide military and other assistance.India, which voted for the two resolutions, offered non-military assistance.

India abstained on a further resolution of the Security Council on 7 July settingup a United Nations Command under the United States, and recommending thatall member States make forces and other assistance available to it. Instead, Indiaundertook intensive diplomatic efforts to avert an extension of the war and tosecure a peaceful settlement.

Negotiations between the United Nations Command and the North Koreanand Chinese commanders began in July 1951 for a cease-fire and armistice.After more than a year of negotiations, both sides reached agreement onmost provisions of a draft Armistice Agreement, but there was a deadlock onthe provisions concerning the repatriation of prisoners of war.

Mr. Menon, who was sent as a member of the Indian delegation to the GeneralAssembly in 1952, especially to deal with the Korean problem, presented aproposal to break the deadlock (A/C.1/734). They were approved by a largemajority in the General Assembly but were rejected by North Korea and China.However, the armistice negotiations were resumed in April 1953 and on July 27,1953, an Armistice Agreement was signed; it incorporated provisions which werevery similar to the Indian proposals.

The Korean Political Conference was held in Geneva in 1954 in accordance withthe Armistice Agreement, but failed to find a solution to the Korean problem. Thedebates in subsequent sessions of the General Assembly led to no progress as onlySouth Korea was invited to participate in the discussions, and the United Statesand its allies continued to insist on United Nations supervision of elections inKorea.]

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly,

November 19, 195270

[As the Korean armistice negotiations in Panmunjom became deadlocked on theprovisions concerning the repatriation of prisoners of war, India submitted adraft resolution (A/C.1/734) containing proposals which it felt might secure anagreement. The draft was adopted by the General Assembly on December 3,1952, as resolution 610 (VII).

In this speech, Mr. Menon explained the terms and purposes of the Indianproposals.]

(Summary)

...Mr. Menon pointed out that his Government approached the Korean problemfrom total belief in the bona fides of both parties to reach an armistice and thatthere was an anxious desire on both sides to bring the war to an end as soon aspossible. In this respect, he recalled a statement of the representative of theUnited States that the purposes of the intervention in Korea had been achievedand that all that remained was the termination of it.

At this stage his delegation did not think it was called upon to enter into adiscussion regarding the facts of the Korean question. The United Nations had,for its part, already reached some conclusions on the facts of the matter, and adiscussion regarding them would more appropriately be conducted in bodies setup to work out a settlement of the Korean question.

The legal aspects of the Korean question had already been rather extensivelydebated in the Committee. While he appreciated that it was not possible todiscuss this question without entering into its legal aspects, it would be losingsight of the final objective if the legality of the question alone became the centreof discussion. His delegation would therefore try to avoid temptation to followthe various legal arguments that had been presented, except in so far they wererelevant to the understanding of the proposals that his delegation had submittedbefore the Committee and in so far as they were helpful in the reconciliation ofthe points of view that might appear to be in conflict.

Similarly, Mr. Menon said, the question of principle which had been raised was avery important question involving the ideals of people, and their determination towork and sacrifice for it. A principle, according to him, was a comprehensivesystem of relationships. To illustrate this point, Mr. Menon stated that a point ofprinciple was not like a geometrical point, that is, it was not without magnitude.It was an area, where it was possible for different parties to enter and find theirabode, and for that reason it was possible to reconcile different points of view

70 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventh Session, First Committee, pages 111-15

without sacrifice of principle. Bearing this in mind, Mr. Menon said he wouldproceed to examine the draft resolution submitted by his delegation (A/C.1/734).

Mr. Menon stated that, first, he should like to acknowledge with gratitude thesympathy, the understanding and assistance which his delegation had received inits efforts to work out the proposals it had submitted. He, however, would like tomake it clear that the responsibility for the contents of the Indian draft resolutionrested solely on his delegation.

In the view of his delegation the negotiations were not to be conducted here inNew York or anywhere else except in Korea where the principal parties were.Nor was it the intention of the Indian delegation that the existing machinery andpersonnel on either side should not continue to carry on the negotiations and bringthem to a successful conclusion. His delegation felt, however, that it was notenough if its resolution contained a mere restatement of any principle, even in amodified form, or of any proposal that did not go into the method of how thepresent difficulty could be resolved. It was for that reason that his delegation'sdraft resolution contained several details. It was divided into two parts; the firstpart contained nine clauses, followed by seventeen headings of proposals.

Mr. Menon pointed out that the Indian draft resolution in its preamble not onlyreferred to the report of the United Nations Command but also to "other relevantreports." This was done to place the immediate problem in the general context ofthe item on the agenda. The resolution then took into account and noted withapproval the various agreements so far reached in the negotiations in Korea andpointed out that there was disagreement now on only one remaining issue. All thedelegations were in agreement on this point. But his delegation could go evenfurther than that and state, on the authority of the Chinese and the North KoreanCommanders that one issue alone prevented the conclusion of an armistice. Thedraft Armistice Agreement would be signed once the question of the repatriationof prisoners was settled. His delegation also found that there was considerablemeasure of agreement in the speeches made on that question and if it werepossible to weave all these points of agreement into a pattern, the Committeewould be nearer to a solution.

Mr. Menon pointed out that article 60 of the draft Armistice Agreement71 was agreat achievement, and for that reason the Indian draft resolution stated that theGeneral Assembly was anxious to expedite and facilitate the convening of thepolitical conference as provided in article 60. The draft resolution referred to thatarticle because the solution of the political problems was the main objective whilethe armistice was only a step towards that end.

The next two clauses of the first part of the draft resolution were its main part andformed the basis of his delegation's proposals. They sought to reconcile the two

71 Article 60 provided for a political conference to settle through negotiation the questions of thewithdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.

points of view, not by a surrender of principles on either side, but by fitting theminto the general pattern of a solution.

Mr. Menon then explained that, in the last paragraph of the first part of the draftresolution, the President of the General Assembly was requested to transmit theproposals to the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of Chinaand to the North Korean authorities only, since the other side was the UnitedNations itself, which would be informed naturally in the appropriate and usualmanner.

Dealing with the second part of the draft resolution, Mr. Menon stated that it wastermed proposals because it was meant to show the way to a solution rather thanbeing a solution in itself. In the opinion of his delegation, the solution must comethrough discussion and negotiation by those who were on the scene in Korea, andthese proposals, which were equally applicable to both sides, were meant only toform the basis of agreement between the two sides. Mr. Menon pointed out thatany cut and dried formula sent out from the United Nations in New York mightmore likely be regarded as hindrance rather than a help.

Since difficulties had arisen owing to the divergent positions held by the twosides, in regard to the repatriation of prisoners, his delegation's draft resolutionhad suggested that a repatriation commission should be set up. This was not anew idea, as in other wars prisoners had been exchanged through neutral orthrough protecting Powers. In this respect, Mr. Menon recalled the disputebetween Bolivia and Paraguay over Chaco. At the end of that war, the prisonersof war held by both sides were repatriated with the help of a repatriationcommission, on which other nations were represented. Similarly, the process ofreturning prisoners to their homeland through the help of a body of people whohave equal access to the two sides was not a novel procedure.

To adopt such a procedure was even more appropriate in the present case, sincethere were charges and counter-charges regarding the prisoners being free or notbeing free, or their being concentrated at places where bombardments take place,or their treatment in prisons. For this reason, his delegation had proposed acommission which would enjoy the confidence of both sides or, at any rate, onwhich both sides were equally represented. It had suggested therefore that theCommission consist of the representatives of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Swedenand Switzerland. Two of them were nearer to one side and two were presumed tobe nearer to the other side. All four were non-combatants and not participants inthe war. Therefore, if it were possible to constitute a repatriation commission ofthese four Powers, the functions as envisaged in the proposals of his delegation'sdraft resolution could be carried out by them. But if for any reason any one ofthese Powers was unable or unwilling to carry out this function, then it should notlead to a deadlock or a postponement of the efforts to bring about an armistice.For that reason, his delegation had proposed that four other Powers, twonominated by each side, but drawn from those not participating in the fighting in

Korea and also not permanent members of the Security Council, be constituted asa commission.

Explaining paragraph 2 of the Indian proposals Mr. Menon stated that thequestion whether the Geneva Convention was ratified by one Power or not did notmatter. He pointed out that at Nuremberg trials it had been laid down and had nowbecome accepted that, irrespective of all conventions, matters of this kind wouldbe dealt with according to principles of international law. For that reason anyobjection by one party or the other that it had not fully followed or ratified theGeneva Convention of 1949, or that it was not operative until now, did not existin reality since it was fully established that the release and repatriation ofprisoners should take place in conformity with international law. On this point,there was unanimity of opinion in the Committee. Moreover, the Chinese and theNorth Koreans had also demanded that repatriation should take place inaccordance with the terms of international law. His delegation therefore thoughtthat such a provision provided a common meeting ground. That this was commonground was also recognised by many other delegations in their speeches.

But a conflict had arisen on what was called "voluntary repatriation," "non-forcible repatriation," and so on. Mr. Menon suggested that, instead of attachingtoo much importance to the words, it would be better to consider the meaning.His delegation was of the opinion that what was really meant was that forceshould not be used against the prisoners of war. This was a basic factor in theGeneva Convention as well as in the practice of international law. The Chinesehad repeatedly said that they were not asking for forcible repatriation. Theywould appear to argue that the soldiers had become prisoners as a result of forceand that, in order to release them, it was necessary to remove the force. The otherparty stated that force would have to used in order to repatriate some of theprisoners. The practice of international law, however, specifically laid downwithout any equivocation or ambiguity, that force must not be used against theprisoners of war to prevent or effect their return to their homelands. Mr. Menonstated that, in pointing out this basic agreement on not using force in therepatriation or detention of prisoners, he was not unmindful of the difficulties thathad arisen as different delegations had given different interpretations to this basicpractice of international law. It would be a duty entrusted to and enjoined on themembers of the repatriation commission to see that force must not be used toprevent or effect the return of the prisoners of war to their homelands. There wasanother clause in the same paragraph which stated that prisoners of war should atall times be treated humanely in accordance with the specific provisions of theGeneva Convention and the general spirit of that Convention, which again was inaccordance with the statement made by the representatives of the two parties.

Explaining paragraph 4 of the Indian proposals, Mr. Menon stated that in regardto the release of prisoners to the repatriation commission it was essential thatagreement regarding numbers, exchange points and demilitarised zones should bereached. He emphasised that this clause, like other clauses, applied to both sides.

Thus, the prisoners of war would come out of the control of the detaining side andwould be released to the repatriation commission. That would be theresponsibility of the detaining side and it would be done at points agreed upon.The repatriation commission might not find it necessary to take all those prisonersto one point. If all the four members of the commission and the two parties wereagreeable, then it might be possible to demilitarise the place where the prisonerswere being detained. His delegation’s draft resolution did not state that theprisoners of war were to be carried to a particular point. As regards the phrase"agreed numbers," Mr. Menon explained that it was used because there werethousands of prisoners and they could not all be released on the same day. Ifthere were an agreement, there could not be any complaint. It was purely atechnical question. The commission or those who were responsible at lowerlevels would be able to say that they could take care of so many prisoners on oneday and so many on the next.

As regards paragraph 5 of his delegation’s proposals,72 Mr. Menon pointed outthat the talks at Panmunjom showed no difficulty on the subject. The reference tothe letters of the Commanders of the North Korean and Chinese forces wasspecifically made in order to avoid any misunderstanding. The classification ofthe prisoners would again be purely a technical question. It would be checked atthe time when the prisoners were no longer in the custody of the detaining sideand when they would be under the influence of the neutral Powers.

Under paragraph 6 of the Indian proposals, the prisoners would be free to returnto their homelands forthwith and their speedy return would be facilitated by allparties concerned. This would eliminate all question of forcible detention andwould expedite the return of the prisoners to their homelands.

Mr. Menon stated that paragraph 7 was an important paragraph in his delegation'sproposals. It had been argued by the other side that a prisoner could not expresshimself while he was under imprisonment. This paragraph envisaged that oncethe prisoners had been released by the detaining Power and were on their way totheir homelands, the two parties should have freedom and facilities to explain tothe prisoners depending on them, their rights and the conditions prevailing intheir homelands. One party had pointed out that since the prisoners had beencompletely shut off from the world during their captivity, they had absolutely noknowledge of what was going on on the other side. For this reason the two partieswould have facilities to explain the situation to them. This would mean that itwould be possible for the Chinese side for instance to explain to the prisoners thatthere was an amnesty. They would be able to tell the prisoners that they needhave no fear of going home and there would be an opportunity to answer thequestions of the prisoners. Thus it would remove many misunderstandings thatmight have arisen in the minds of the prisoners.

Paragraph 8 of the proposals enlisted the aid of Red Cross teams of both sides in

72 Concerning the classification of prisoners according to nationality and domicile

the work of the repatriation commission. The Red Cross teams could, forinstance, explain to the prisoners that they could go home and that they could nottake part in the fighting.

Paragraph 9 of the proposals would give the prisoners freedom and facilities tomake representations to the repatriation commission. Mr. Menon pointed out thatit was again a technical question. One could not have thousands and thousands ofprisoners at any time of day or night wanting to ask questions. It would all haveto be done according to arrangements prescribed for the purpose. This was themain purpose of paragraph 9.

Paragraph 10 of the proposals was necessary inasmuch as it was impossible toarrange for the organisation of a unit or of a camp with large numbers of peoplewithout some discipline, some rules and order.

Paragraph 11 gave the right to the prisoners to know under what conditions theywere being repatriated. The Geneva Convention also gave this right to theprisoners of war.

Mr. Menon then referred to the clauses in the Indian proposals regarding theappointment of an umpire. He pointed out that when the two sides had agreed onthe basis of repatriation, then questions of interpretation would arise. This wouldbe a natural situation since every agreement required interpretation. Normally theinterpretation of the agreement would rest with the repatriation commission, butin a commission in which each side nominated two members there might be aneven split and disagreement, in which event a majority decision would beunobtainable. It was therefore proposed that an umpire in accordance with article132 of the Geneva Convention of 1949 should be appointed and that he shouldhave the deciding vote. This matter was also discussed at the time of the signingof the Geneva Convention. The appointment of an umpire by agreement betweenthe parties was one of the provisions written into it. It was also a normalprocedure in industrial disputes, or in disputes between nations.

His delegation felt that the best way out of an impasse would be for the twoparties to agree on the appointment of an umpire. However, if there were noagreement, then the matter would be referred to the General Assembly. That didnot mean that the General Assembly would appoint an umpire; it only meant thatthe General Assembly would consider what could be done at that stage. Hisdelegation, however, felt that it was very vital that the repatriation commissionshould, in its first meeting and prior to an armistice agreement, appoint an umpire.Until that umpire was appointed, the repatriation commission would not comeinto being and, until the repatriation commission did come into being, thearmistice agreement could not be validated, and the armistice would not becomeoperative. In order to avoid a prolongation of the disagreement on theappointment of an umpire, it was being proposed that a period of three weeks befixed for the appointment. The suggestion of a time limit was not to be construed

as constituting an ultimatum, but only an indication that the appointment of anumpire, which alone enabled the repatriation commission to get moving, shouldnot be delayed.

Mr. Menon explained that paragraph 15 was also inserted for practical reasons.The commission would certainly need assistance and would have to delegate itspower, not in principle or in policy but for administrative purposes, to subordinateorgans. In this way, replicas of the repatriation commission would function.

Explaining paragraph 16 of the proposals, Mr. Menon pointed out that it indicatedthat a machinery of execution was already provided in the draft ArmisticeAgreement; all that was needed was an agreement between the two parties onrepatriation. Thus, as soon as an agreement on this issue was reached, the draftArmistice Agreement would become operative.

Mr. Menon stated that paragraph 17 of the proposals was linked with the sixthparagraph of the preamble. The draft Armistice Agreement provided for thepolitical conference to meet at the end of ninety days; that was why this paragraphhad also limited the period to ninety days, and there was no other sanctityattached to it. Explaining further, Mr. Menon stated that the present position wasthat, according to the knowledge of the United Nations Command there was alarge number of prisoners who would not like to return to their homelands. Onthe other hand, the Chinese thought that these prisoners would return if they werefree from control. There would be no problem if all prisoners were to decide togo home after their release from the military control and when they came underneutral supervision. If, however, there were number of people at the end of ninetydays who had still not returned to their homelands, for one reason or another, thentheir case should be referred to the political conference which would have comeinto existence in accordance with article 60 of the draft Armistice Agreement andwhich was to deal with the whole of the Korean question. He pointed out that hisdelegation did not intend to suggest any shifting of responsibility from one organto another, because if that were so, there would be no point having an armistice atall. The idea was that a new body would have come into being and a reference toit had to be made. One would hope that the repatriation commission would makerecommendations and would endeavour to get an agreement to deal with theresidue of the prisoners.

Moreover, those prisoners, who for one reason or another were not able to returnto their homelands, could not be kept in captivity for an indeterminate period.Usually, a time limit was set within which a prisoner of war should be repatriated.It might therefore be necessary to make some provision to that effect if thereremained such a residue. One provision could be to refer the matter to thepolitical conference. The political conference might give an immediate decision.If the conference were to bring about peace quickly, then the question wouldassume another aspect because in conditions of peace there would be noprisoners. But if, in spite of the efforts of the repatriation commission, there were

still some prisoners left, their case would become the responsibility of the UnitedNations. Mr. Menon added that it was apparent from the statements on both sidesthat there would be prisoners who might not be wanted by one side or the other.Under those circumstances, there would be a residue and that residue wouldconstitute a group of people who had to be cared for. they could not be kept incaptivity forever, and the repatriation commission would have to makerecommendations.

Mr. Menon gave the assurance that there were no strings attached to thisparagraph; it simply meant that it was necessary to have a paragraph which wouldprovide a time limit. There was no question of people being further screened. Asat every stage, the general principles of international law must be observed andthe prisoners released to the repatriation commission were always entitled tohumanitarian treatment...

Mr. Menon added that in submitting the draft solution his delegation was notprescribing a solution, but was indicating the way to a solution. It was possible tofind various hypothetical situations which might make difficulties but that was acommon factor to every plan. In fact, such hypothetical situations existed inadequate numbers in the draft Armistice Agreement itself. His delegation hadproceeded on the basis that the moment the question of repatriation of prisoners ofwar was settled, the draft Armistice Agreement would begin to operate.

In conclusion, Mr. Menon appealed to the Committee that, while considering theresolution submitted by his delegation, its members would not only analyse itsclauses, but would also analyse its effectiveness as a decision of this Assemblywith all its moral authority and in view of all the urgency that the situation inKorea demanded.

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly,December 1, 195273

[This statement was in reply to the debate on the Indian draft resolutionconcerning the repatriation of prisoners of war.]

(Summary)

Mr. MENON (India) recalled that twelve days ago his delegation had submitted adraft resolution as a possible solution of the Korean problem. That draftresolution had been debated by a large number of delegations. He, however, feltagain the absence of the representatives of the People's Republic of China, as hisdelegation considered that the Korean question could not be fully andappropriately discussed without the participation of the representatives of China.Similarly, since the Committee had permitted the representatives of the South

73 Source: Ibid., pages 173-77

Korean authorities to take part in the debate, it was necessary also to inviterepresentatives of North Korean authorities.

Mr. Menon stated that the discussion that had taken place on his delegation's draftresolution had given his delegation considerable assistance in understanding thevarious points of view. He was grateful to the Committee for giving priority tothe Indian draft resolution. In their efforts to find a peaceful solution of theKorean problems, his delegation was specially indebted to two groups of people.While the draft resolution had been submitted in the name of India, it had thesympathy, the support and the concern of all delegations from the Asiancontinent. It had also the sympathy of the great countries of the South Americancontinent which, although far away from Asia and not directly involved in theKorean war, had consistently expressed their desire to be of assistance in finding asolution of this problem. Mr. Menon pointed out that in singling out these twogroups of people he was not in any way making invidious distinctions.

Referring to the debate on the Indian draft resolution, Mr. Menon stated that it hadrevealed considerable common ground not only between delegations which werealigned one to the other, but also between delegations representing differentpoints of view. Such differences as existed appeared to be very largely based onfears and doubts and possibly a lack of clarity on certain aspects of the Indianproposal. His delegation would therefore do its best to supply these clarifications.

He reaffirmed the point of view of his delegation that, in submitting its draftresolution concerned with proposals for a Korean armistice, it believed that asettlement in Korea would lead to a general settlement in the Far East and to animprovement in the entire world situation. His delegation also hoped that itwould speed the day when the representatives of the People's Republic of Chinawould be able to take their rightful place in the United Nations. It was in the hopethat the Indian proposals or something akin to them, might sooner or laterconvince the Chinese people and their Government as offering a way out ofpresent difficulties that his delegation put forward the proposals, in spite of thefact that the Indian Government had not yet succeeded in conveying to the CentralPeople's Government of China the purposes for which they were made.

Mr. Menon emphasised that his Government had never alleged at any time that itwas speaking for China. However, it could speak to China, and that was the greatadvantage that it had. When it presented what it thought might be a possiblesolution, it acted largely on the basis of its judgement and the information itpossessed. Throughout its efforts to find a solution of the Korean problem, theGovernment of India kept the People's Republic of China informed, although thatwas done entirely on the responsibility of the Government of India. Whatevermight be the immediate fate of the Indian draft resolution, the Government ofIndia would continue to keep its contact with the People's Republic of China andwould continue in its efforts towards achieving peace. His delegation had noillusions that a settlement could be reached without the agreement of the People's

Republic of China. Therefore in submitting its draft resolution, the Indiandelegation was not laying down any terms; it was merely making proposals whichwould pave the way to negotiations.

Recalling the continuous cultural, social and economic relations between Indiaand China during the last two or three thousand years, Mr. Menon observed thatthis relation had never brought about conflict or resulted in the division of spheresof interest or rivalries which normally characterised such relations. In the light ofits motives and in the light of its understanding of the world situation and all thefactors that concerned Asia and the world as a whole, his Government hoped thatit would succeed in presenting its proposals to the People's Republic of China.No doubt the Chinese Government, an independent and powerful Governmentenjoying the support of its people, would make its own decisions on theseproposals. Nevertheless, the Government of India, representing a people whowere placed midway in proximity of relationship to the two continents and thetwo views, felt its duty to continue its efforts in dispelling doubts and inpresenting its point of view. His Government's principal audience in this respectwas to be found on the Chinese mainland.

Clarifying the Indian draft resolution, Mr. Menon stated that it provided that theprisoners of war on either side were free to return, not in an academic but inactive sense. There would be no restraint upon them, and indeed, their returnwould be facilitated. This freedom would be guaranteed to the prisoners if thedraft resolution were accepted by the Committee, and any obstruction placed ontheir return after its adoption would be contrary to that decision and contrary tointernational law. Furthermore, the Indian proposals would expedite therepatriation process. There would be no further "screening" or interrogation. Therepatriation commission, as proposed in the Indian draft resolution, would in asense serve as caretakers of people who were on their way home and not asgaolers. There would be no opportunity for any kind of third degree, or illegal orundue pressure. Equally, there would be no question of people being divided intocategories of those who "want to go" and those who "do not want to go" and thusbecoming marked men.

The first step in the implementation of these proposals would be the release of allprisoners into the custody of a body other than the detaining side. Thus, the firstact of release by the detaining side would be the first step of repatriation. In thatfirst step, the provisions of the Geneva Convention with regard to full repatriationwould begin to operate and would constitute the observance of international lawin its first stage.

In submitting its draft resolution, the Indian delegation endeavoured to find a waywhich would meet such legitimate objections as there might be, without infringingrights, international law or deep-seated and well held beliefs... The Indianproposals, Mr. Menon submitted, represented a great advance towardsreconciliation and a great advance also in the full implementation of international

law. He added that one could understand the objections raised by the People'sRepublic of China in view of what had been said in the past regarding thequestion of voluntary repatriation and also in view of the lack of adequateinformation abroad concerning the proceedings of the Committee.

Mr. Menon said that one of the main planks of the Indian draft resolution was thatthe settlement must be in terms of the Geneva Convention of 1949. The GenevaConvention now formed a part of international law and there should not be anyinroads into that Convention.

However, if some difficulties arose in the implementation, they should be solvedin a manner which would not be contrary to the Convention. This principle wasnot only applicable in international law but was also part of the law of almostevery individual country. Since the United States was the country deeplyconcerned in this matter, having the largest number of troops in the battle area andbeing one of the principal participants in the debate, he would like to cite fromsome legal decisions of United States courts which would corroborate thisposition.

After the Second World War many prisoners of war of Italian and Germannationality desired to remain in the United States rather than to be repatriated.They claimed to be American citizens on the grounds that they were born in theUnited States or that their parents had been naturalised or for some other reasons.But the United States had already decided on a policy repatriating all prisoners ofwar irrespective of their desire and no exceptions were made to that policy. Thatpolicy was also supported by the courts. Mr. Menon then cited a decision by theCircuit Court of Appeals on June 8, 1946, which upheld the policy adopted byAmerican military authorities as valid and legal. Thus, as far as the United Stateslaw was concerned, the right of repatriation was obligatory. Therefore, inadopting the same policy with regard to Korea, the Indian delegation wasfollowing the obligation as contained in the Geneva Convention.

Mr. Menon pointed out that it was a fact that the Geneva Convention did not dealwith the question whether, on account of the obligation of repatriation, it waslegitimate or right or obligatory on the part of one Power to use force in order toremove the body of one person to another place. Since the Geneva Conventiondid not deal with this question, it placed no obligation for forcible repatriation onthe detaining Power.

On the other hand, when the framing of the Geneva Convention was underdiscussion the Austrian representative sought permission for prisoners to opt to goto countries of their choice. This request was not supported and the mainopposition to it came from the United States and the USSR. They stated that itwas not in the interest of the State of origin that this right be conferred on theprisoners of war. Thus the right of repatriation, the freedom to go and the lack ofright on the part of a State to detain, were laid down by the Convention.

Mr. Menon pointed out that there was no contradiction between paragraphs 2 and3 of the Indian proposals. So far as the obligation to use force was concerned,Article 118 of the Geneva Convention had to be read with other Articles, and itwas laid down in Article 3 that under no circumstances could violence be usedagainst the person of a prisoner by anyone. Under the Indian proposal, theprisoner of war would cease to be under the custody of the detaining Power andwould pass on to the care of a neutral authority nominated by the two sides.

Comparing the Indian proposals with the proposals put forward at Panmunjom,74

Mr. Menon pointed out that under the Indian proposals the prisoners of war couldnot go back to the detaining Power. They would be released into the custody ofneutral Powers who would act for the parties in the conflict. Since they would beunder the custody of neutral Powers, who would be bound by international law,there would be no opportunity for the former detaining Power on either side toexercise any coercive pressure on them. There would be no more screening orinterrogation.

Mr. Menon explained that under the Indian proposals all prisoners of war withoutexception must be delivered to the repatriation commission who would receivethem, not on behalf of the detaining Power but on behalf of the country of origin,in order that repatriation might be effected. Thus, the obligation under Article118 of the Geneva Convention was carried out in respect to all prisoners and notwith regard to any particular section of them. They would cease to have anycontacts with the former detaining Power, and even if they had any questions toraise, they would approach the repatriation commission in that respect. Moreover,the repatriation commission would be obliged to make sure that the prisonerswere not placed in such a way that they might be open to pressure or coercion.The Indian proposals also would refer the remainder, if any, of the problem ofprisoners to the political conference already agreed to by the parties. Thus, therewould be no unilateral disposal of this problem.

Mr. Menon then stated that the expression which had been used in the Indian draftresolution that force should not be used either to detain or to effect return to theirhomelands meant that the detaining side should not be called upon to use forceagainst any unarmed prisoners to effect their return. This non-use of force was,however, equally applicable to detention as it would be in the case of repatriatingprisoners. Since there were charges and complaints by both sides that theprisoners of war were being subjected to torture or were being kept in placeswhich were subject to aerial bombardment, it was important to remember that thenon-use of force was also equally applicable to detention of prisoners.

The Indian proposals would also facilitate the return of the prisoners to theirhomelands as speedily as possible. In this respect, guards who would not beapproved by the repatriation commission because of special racial, political or

74 Proposals by the United Nations Command

other objections would be removed.

As regards the mental or nervous state of prisoners of war, who, because of theirprolonged detention, are unable to decide their future, Mr. Menon pointed out thatthere would be a considerable period during which the Red Cross representativesof both sides and the representatives of the State of origin could approach theprisoners to provide information to them in accordance with the arrangements tobe made by the repatriation commission. If the prisoners entertained any wrongideas as to their home conditions, certainly there would be opportunities to havethem corrected.

Finally, the Indian proposals provided that the prisoners should not remain incaptivity forever. In fact, when the prisoners were released to the repatriationcommission, they would be on their way home. In any case, it would be wrong tocharacterise the control of the repatriation commission as one akin to thatexercised in a concentration camp.

However, if there were still some prisoners on either side whose return to theirhomes could not be effected, then that problem would be referred to the politicalconference which was provided for in the draft Armistice Agreement. It waspointed out by some delegates that this paragraph of the Indian proposals wasbased on the assumption that there would be a number of people whose returnwould not be effected. While his delegation did not subscribe to such anassumption, it was necessary and reasonable, in view of the various allegationsmade, that provision must be made for such a contingency. However, thisquestion would arise only if there were some prisoners left whose return mightnot be effected.

Referring to the main objections which had been raised in the Committee to theIndian proposals, Mr. Menon said that one of the main objections was that hisdelegation's draft resolution did not provide for a cease-fire. He, however, wishedto point out that the Indian draft resolution was a cease-fire resolution. Since theonly obstacle to an armistice in Korea was the non-settlement of the issue of theprisoners of war, if it were solved then there would be a cease-fire within twelvehours. Therefore, the concentration on the question of prisoners of war wasessential inasmuch as it was blocking the way to a cease-fire. Accordingly, hisdelegation's proposal must be considered as a cease-fire resolution.

In this respect, Mr. Menon recalled the previous efforts to arrive at a cease-fire inKorea. On December 13, 1950, thirteen Asian nations had requested and obtainedthe setting up of a cease-fire group. That group formulated certain principles for acease-fire which were approved on January 13, 1951. They called for a cease-fireto be followed by a political conference. The People's Republic of China rejectedthose proposals at that time as it found it unacceptable to have a cease-fire beforepolitical negotiations. The United Nations, however, continued in its efforts toachieve a cease-fire. These efforts received an impetus by the initiative taken by

Mr. Jacob Malik in a statement on June 23, 1951, which was later clarified by Mr.Gromkyo on 26 June. These resulted in the Commander of the United Nationsforces in Korea asking the North Korean and Chinese Commanders to aconference and consequently the armistice negotiations started on 12 July. Thenegotiators agreed upon an agenda and that agenda included five items, one ofwhich was the question of prisoners of war. Four of these items were alreadysettled and only the question of prisoners of war still remained to be settled.Therefore it must be apparent that the present situation was merely thecontinuation of a series of efforts to establish a cease-fire. Once the question ofthe repatriation of prisoners of war was settled, there would be no furtherobstruction to the achieving of a cease-fire...

As regards the question of the appointment of an umpire, an umpire wasnecessary because the four Powers which had been proposed for the repatriationcommission might not always be in agreement. Since these Powers were thenominees of the two sides, it was likely that there might be very sharp differenceson certain occasions, and his delegation did not like the idea that on account oftheir differences there might be a delay in the repatriation of the prisoners. Thatwas why an umpire had been provided. He would be called in when the membersof the commission were equally divided. His delegation saw no other role for theumpire under its proposals other than arbitrating in case of a deadlock. For thatreason, it would not like that the umpire be made a member of the commissionsince the umpire must be agreed to by the two parties and must be availablewhenever necessary. However, unless the two parties agreed to appoint achairman, either by rotation or otherwise, the umpire could act as chairman. Mr.Menon also pointed out that his delegation did not mean that the umpire should beappointed by the United Nations in case of a deadlock. His delegation had onlyproposed that if in three weeks' time there was not an agreement on theappointment of an umpire, then the matter should be referred for further action tothe United Nations as the party that had made the proposals...

Mr. Menon said that the delegation was seeking only to bring together the partiesthat were divided by war and by a conflict which had devastated lands to the pointwhere the stability of the Asian continent was at stake. That initiative was solidlysupported by other Asian nations who felt that the war being waged in theircontinent should come to an end. So long as there was the will to peace, peacemust ensue... He hoped that the Committee would pass the Indian draft resolutionwithout any dissenting votes. That draft resolution did not settle everything; but ifaccepted in the spirit in which it had been put forward, it did endeavour to suggesta way out of the difficulties which had thus far stood in the path of a settlementand it might well lead to a lightening of the tremendous burden oppressinghumanity...


[On December 14, 1952, there was a riot in an internment camp in Pongam;many prisoners were killed and wounded as a result of firing by UnitedStates and South Korean guards. The Soviet Union brought a complaint tothe General Assembly alleging murder of prisoners of war, and moved acondemnatory draft resolution. The following is the explanation of vote byMr. Menon.

India abstained on the draft resolution which was rejected by the Assembly.]

The General Committee and, later, the General Assembly, in according at this latehour its unanimous assent to the discussion of this problem on this last day of ourAssembly session, record the concern of all of us, irrespective of the views heldon this draft resolution, in regard to the general problem of Korea and of thetreatment of prisoners...

Irrespective of all the arguments pro and con, we cannot forget the fact that therehas been a grievous incident, and we have to deal with this in terms of the GenevaConvention. If there has been one result above all others from the adoption of theresolution on Korea,76 it is that an overwhelming majority of the Assembly, andeven those who opposed the resolution, have affirmed their allegiance to theConvention.

The United States delegation has referred to the fact that there were no prisonersof war in these camps.77 I am neither anxious nor able to contest this, nor am Idesirous of doing so; it is not necessary to do so. But I should like to say - andthis is by no means any condemnation since it would be very wrong to condemnwithout having the facts before one - that whoever these people are, they comeunder the Geneva Convention because the Geneva Convention, in article 4,definitely lays down, in relation to the treatment of civilians, that the personsprotected by the Convention are those who at any given time in any mannerwhatsoever find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of aparty to the conflict, or of an occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

In the last sub-paragraph of that article, it exempts people covered by othersections of the Convention. I say this merely to point out that the concern of all ofus must be to see that the terms of Convention, as a rule of law, are observed.

75 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventh Session, Plenary Meetings, pages519-2076 Resolution 610 (VII) of December 3, 195277 The United States representative had stated that the Koreans interned in the camp were guerillasand other Communists captured in South Korea, and not prisoners of war.

Since this matter has come before us, we appeal to those with the responsibilityand the power to see that the matter is fully investigated in order that the peoplesof the world will have confidence in our professions of support of the GenevaConvention.

It is a sad state of affairs when, in prisoner-of-war camps or anywhere else, thenationals of other countries who, as a result of hostilities, have come under theresponsibility, care and control of the detaining Powers, should become subject toaction which ends in killing.

This question has now come before us in this forum, and no effort should bespared to consider whether it was necessary to use force, whether the force usedwas warranted by the Geneva Convention and what further steps can be taken if,unfortunately, this war should continue, as it is continuing, to prevent anyrecurrence of this character. These occurrences, apart from the special viewswhich various people may hold, have the effect of weakening the faith of thepeoples of the world in the whole conception of the rule of law in regard to warprisoners. This is the main reason why we have intervened in this debate.

Reference has been made to the resolution that was adopted by the Assembly,which is no longer our resolution, and to its effect one way or another in regard tothe rioting. It is not my intention to enter into a debate upon its merits or what itstands for, or to try to refute the various arguments that have been advanced.However, I cannot let this last day of the session pass without removing from theminds of people outside this hall an erroneous impression of what it stood for.Reference has been made to our being a rubber stamp. It would require a verylarge stamp to stamp us. Therefore, I reiterate, and I do not care very much whatcontradictions may continue to follow, that the resolution was an endeavour toobtain peace in Korea. I am sure that everyone will feel that if that effect hadbeen achieved now, there would have been no prisoner-of-war camps and no riots.The ending of the war is the way to end the treatment of the prisoners of war,whether or not the facts alleged are true.

I should like to read what my Prime Minister stated in Parliament concerning theresolution:

"This resolution was based on certain principles which are based on theGeneva Convention, which lays down well-established principles on thepractice of international law on the subject. While voluntary repatriationwould have been against these principles and was ruled out, it was statedthat force shall not be used against prisoners of war to prevent or effecttheir return to their homelands and no violence to their persons or affrontto their dignity or self-respect shall be permitted in any manner or for anypurpose whatsoever."

REFERENCE HAS ALSO BEEN MADE TO CHINA; it has been said that we

have submitted proposals of which it had no knowledge. I took very good carein the course of the debate not to involve more parties than necessary, becauseour one concern was not to score a point in the debate but to make somecontribution to peace. As to the Central People’s Government of the People’sRepublic of China, it was not represented at the United Nations, but wecommunicated these principles to it at Peking on 2 November; we were notacting here for fifteen or seventeen days without the knowledge of those onwhom this would have an impact. We were given to understand that the CentralPeople’s Government appreciated our attempt. While it made no commitment atall, there was no disapproval indicated. It made it clear, however, that it wasentirely opposed to voluntary repatriation.

The Government of India, while greatly appreciating the wide support for theresolution received from a very large number of States members of the UnitedNations, deeply regrets that the Central People's Government of the People’sRepublic of China and the Soviet Union Government have been unable to acceptthe resolution. That is our position. We still hope that on reconsideration, thesegovernments will appreciate that the proposals contained in the resolution arefair and just, are based essentially on the Geneva Convention and oninternational law, and are not opposed in any way to the basic principles whichthey themselves put forward on earlier occasions.

The resolution is not mandatory. It is an honest attempt to find a solution to aproblem which is endangering the peace of the entire world and the continuationof which has brought the utmost ruin and misery to the people of Korea.

It was not our intention to refer to this, but the debate has brought the subjectinto the discussion at this time. Even though at the present moment theresolution stands rejected by the Central People’s Government, I believe we canpermit ourselves to think that the discussions have had the effect of focusing theattention of the overwhelming majority of peoples and of governments of theworld on the way of peace. They are aware of the Korean problem and of theefforts and the perseverance that must be exerted and all the work that must bedone, whatever the obstructions; and that is the purpose that we have achievedso far. We admit that the purpose is not complete until the war in Korea isended, but neither invective in this Assembly nor battle in Korea will bringabout peace. Therefore, we continue to appeal; and as regards my Governmentand my people, we shall struggle in this direction.

AS FOR THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ITSELF, WE SHALL NOT VOTEAGAINST IT for the simple reason that it refers to prisoners of war. Equally,we cannot vote in favour of it because it refers to facts which are alleged andwhich have not been investigated, as far as we are concerned. We have statedour position fully. We believe that any allegations of this type, however soundor however wild, must be investigated fully and thoroughly in fairness to the

people who are responsible for the conduct of these places. The confidence ofthe people of the world must remain unshaken.

I should also like to take this opportunity of directing the attention of theAssembly, of the President, and of all those concerned, to the appeal that hasbeen made by the Red Cross organisations for the immediate repatriation of thesick and wounded prisoners on both sides. The appeal has been made to theUnited Nations Command and to the Governments of the People’s Republic ofChina and of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea that those who arewounded should be returned immediately in accordance with Article 109 of theConvention.

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, August 28, 195378

[Armistice negotiations in Korea were resumed on April 26, 1953, and anArmistice Agreement was signed on 27 July. It provided that prisoners of warwho did not wish to be repatriated to their home countries would be handed overby the parties to a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission - consisting ofSweden, Switzerland, Poland and Czechoslovakia, with India as Chairman - fordisposition.

The General Assembly resumed its session on August 17, 1953, to consider theKorean question, especially the political conference envisaged in the ArmisticeAgreement for the peaceful settlement of the Korean question.

By resolution 711 (VII) of August 28, 1953, the General Assembly approved theArmistice Agreement, and decided that the participants in the Conference on theUnited Nations side would include only member States which had contributedarmed forces to the United Nations Command and South Korea. It also providedfor the participation of the Soviet Union. (As a result, a subsequent proposal byNorth Korea and China to invite four neutral nations - India, Indonesia, Pakistanand Burma - was rejected by the United States as head of the United NationsCommand.]

My delegation has explained its position very fully in the Committee on the draftresolutions that are now submitted. We regard draft resolution A of the FirstCommittee as containing the possibilities of bringing about the desired resultswhich should now flow from the armistice, given goodwill on all sides, and if itsextensive possibilities are fully explored.

This is not the time, nor would it be desirable for us, to enter into a controversy on

78 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventh Session, Plenary Meetings, pages724-25

this, to make any elaborate explanation of our position. At the same time it isnecessary for me, on behalf of the Government of India, to make it quite clear thatour approach to the present situation is that we are in a post-armistice period, thatis, that we are marching towards peace rather than merely stopping the war orbringing about a cessation of hostilities. In that context we consider that thefurther negotiations should not rule out any possibility, provided all thosepossibilities move in one direction, namely the direction of peace.

We therefore stated before the Committee that we envisaged this conference asone that should not engage itself in previous arguments as to what is, or is not, tobe discussed, but as one that should proceed on the basis of the terms of referencelaid down in paragraph 60 of the Armistice Agreement and the interpretation leftto the conference itself. As I said at that time, our own understanding of theposition of the Chinese and North Korean Governments is that they wouldapproach this problem in a mood of reasonableness and the desire to bring about apeaceful settlement.

For all those reasons, with regard to all these draft resolutions, we declined toparticipate. It is not because my Government or people have no views on thematter, it is not because we have no concern, and it is not because we areindifferent. But I suppose there are occasions when even those who stand andwait also perform a service. We therefore did not participate in any of the votingexcept on one point, and that is where draft resolution A says that the GeneralAssembly welcomes this conference. That is our attitude on the whole of thismatter...

Secondly, I would like to tell the representative of the United States that we sharehis concern, that those men who have suffered the horror of war on both sides,those who are disabled, those who have been away from their homes, shouldreturn to their homes very quickly. That was our attitude in regard to therepatriation resolution [705 (VII)]. In fact, if I may say so, we used theexpression "return to their homelands," and that is what everybody wants. But itis not sufficient to want something; we must pave the way towards it. In thewords of a distinguished poet after the first Great War, "words without deedsbreed pestilence," and in this case it is the pestilence of separation from peoples,the pestilence of all the post-war consequences. Therefore, in any approach thatwe make, it will be in this way.

When I came to the rostrum I intended to make a longer statement. I do not feelthat I need do that because sometimes one’s conclusions may be right. I amreminded of what an old judge is supposed to have said to a young judge: "Giveyour conclusions and you will always probably be right; don’t give yourarguments, you will probably be wrong." I do not think I shall be wrong, but stillI do not want to take the risk. Our approach, therefore, is one where as little aspossible may be said and done which slams any door, which creates furtherobstacles. We have a great deal of them now and it is our task to overcome them.

Given good will, I believe it will be possible, going on from the draft resolutions -and I use the multiple - that have been before this body, to move forward to findways and means of bringing about a conference and the rehabilitation andunification of Korea, which is our object.

The representative of the United States in the course of his observations beforethe Committee - I am afraid I shall have to refer to this matter - made reference -for the moment it is in the state of obiter dicta - to a possible second or third orfourth conference. Of course, conferences can always take place; there are issuesto be solved. But we do not want to be regarded as subscribing to or for oragainst any of those suggestions. What we have at the moment is a conferencethat must follow from the post-armistice situation which has been provided for,which we have been discussing. We have already said that what should bediscussed there is a matter for the conference.

It is interesting that in the history of peace conferences the situation has alwaysbeen so. In Vienna in 1815, the negotiators met for particular purposes. Theywent on to discuss the status of diplomatic representatives. They went on todiscuss the navigation of rivers. In connection with the Treaty of Paris, thenegotiators discussed maritime laws and the state of private property. In 1919,the negotiators established the International Labour Office. It is surprising, whenpeople get together, what they may or may not discuss. Therefore we are contentto leave this in the hands of people who, whatever the divergences of their viewsmay be, must be weighed down with their responsibilities and with the desire tobring about peace...

YESTERDAY, IN THE COMMITTEE, WE CAME TO THE VOTING STAGEon the draft resolutions, and we found that there was one large part of the globe,confined to this continent with the exception of Canada, which had certain viewsin a very large majority - the United States and the great Republics of LatinAmerica. We were also happy to note that, of the States which took part in thefighting in Korea and made the sacrifices, only three or four regarded the draftresolution submitted by the United Kingdom and its sister States of the

Commonwealth [A/L.153] as not acceptable.79 We are also beholden to oursister States of Asia. India is not a country which makes sharp continentaldivisions because it is objectives and ideas which unite people, not merelygeography. Geography is one factor, and a very important one, but it is noteverything. But we are grateful to our Asian colleagues who, with only twoexceptions, supported the draft resolution.

It is against that background that my Government has to approach the whole ofthe situation, and the position is by no means one where it is possible to say that

79 Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom had submitted a draft resolution inthe First Committee recommending that India participate in the political conference. It wasadopted by 27 votes to 21, with 11 abstentions. The United States opposed the proposal.

one has reached a decision that is free from difficulty or from any objection ofany kind.

Taking everything into consideration, I think that the purposes of peace are bestreached by not forcing the draft resolution with regard to India to a division in thisAssembly. I have repeatedly stated that we are at all times willing to assist in thecause of peace. I have cited three elements: one was the decision of thisAssembly, another the attitude of the Chinese and North Korean Governments,and the third our own evaluation of what is or is not likely to be useful.

We have also said that we are basically in favour of a composite conference andthat, therefore, the Soviet Union draft resolution [A/L.157] was, basically, theright approach, although we do not subscribe to its individual composition or tothe arguments produced for or against.

Against that background, therefore, I must repeat that my delegation will not inany way try to influence the Assembly’s decision. We have done no canvassing:we have not been candidates. As I have said, India has not "stood up" or "stooddown." All we can do is to express our views and leave it to the Assembly’ssense of what is its duty and what it thinks is the right thing to do in these matters.

I think it is also necessary to say, in fairness to our sister States of theCommonwealth, that they have at no time tried to exert any influence or pressureon my Government, on my delegation or on me as an individual. The UnitedKingdom, it is quite understandable, would not try to do that because it knows wedo not yield to pressure; and, what is more, the United Kingdom is notaccustomed to doing that sort of thing. Thus there has been no argument, no dealand no trade or anything of that kind in this matter. We come here, of our ownvolition, in the interests of the cause we serve and on the basis of the principlesthat I have repeatedly stated before the Committee. I say, in all sincerity, that theheat that has been injected into this debate is not the official contribution made bythe United States delegation. There is no lack of friendliness or of cordialitybetween us, whatever our views may be. We have not hesitated to state ourposition in regard to all this.

I hope, in these circumstances, that those who have supported us will not thinkthat we are running away from a battle. What we are trying to do is not to add tothe heat of any battle. That is the contribution we try in all humility to make. I donot know how these things are done, but I hope that some way will be foundwhereby the sponsors of the draft resolution on Indian participation will be able toexpress themselves as to what they wish to do, and I hope also that our supporterswill accept both our gratitude and the expression of our intentions and ourmotives in making this statement. We do not say that we are standing down,because India has not been a candidate, but we think, as a member of thisAssembly and as part of the family which must make the contribution towardspeace, that the best course that can be adopted so far as concerns draft resolution

C is not to force it to a decision.80


December 7, 195481

[The Korean Political Conference, under the Armistice Agreement, met in Genevafrom April 26 to June 15, 1954, but failed to reach agreement.

The fifteen countries attending the Conference on the United Nations sidesubmitted a report to the General Assembly (A/2786) and presented a draftresolution (A/C.1/L.119) to approve the report and thereby their proposals,especially that elections in Korea should be under the supervision of theUnited Nations, which were not accepted by the other side.

Mr. Menon, in his speech, warned against this approach and advocatedconciliation and negotiations as essential for a peaceful solution. India submitteda draft resolution which called merely for taking note of the 15-Power report onthe Conference.

The General Assembly adopted the 15-Power draft on December 11, 1954, asresolution 811 (IX). India abstained on that resolution and did not press its owndraft to a vote.

Similar resolutions were adopted in subsequent sessions of the Assembly andthere was no progress towards a peaceful settlement.]

(Summary)

Mr. Menon (India) said that on seven occasions and during five GeneralAssembly sessions the United Nations had been discussing the Korean problem.The aim of the United Nations - the unification of Korea by peaceful means - hadremained unchanged throughout, in spite of pressures from outside the GeneralAssembly.

Among the documents before the Committee were the reports of the NeutralNations Repatriation Commission (A/2641) which, regrettably, had hardly beenmentioned so far. Yet the Commission had contributed to the efforts of the United

80 At the request of the sponsors, the draft resolution on India’s participation in the politicalconference was not put to the vote.81 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Ninth Session, First Committee, pages 504-06

Nations to bring about the cessation of hostilities in Korea. It was generallyrecognised that the stubborn problem of the repatriation of prisoners had beensolved through the good offices of the Commission. When the Indianrepresentative on the Commission, as its Chairman, had asked by acommunication dated January 10, 1954, at the conclusion of the 120-day periodprovided for under General Assembly resolution 610 (VII), that the Assemblyshould be convened so that he could submit the Commission's report to it, themajority of the member States had refused his request. The decision had beenunfortunate, particularly as it was known to have been taken on the initiative ofthe more powerful nations, the very nations which, during the resumed seventhsession of the General Assembly in August 1953, had practically promised that arequest to reconvene the Assembly would be received favourably. His delegationwould not start a discussion of the subject so as not to raise some controversialissues which might make both parties even more inflexible, but it reserved theright to request the General Assembly to study the reports in question, ifnecessary.

The Committee also had before it a note by the Secretary-General on the questionof the prisoners of war (A/2809). In that connection, the Indian delegation invitedparticularly those States which had voted for General Assembly resolution 610(VII) of December 3, 1952, to read paragraph XVII of the proposals appended tothat resolution; it stated that if there were any prisoners of war who had not beenrepatriated and whose future had not been provided for by the politicalconference, the responsibility for their care would be transferred to the UnitedNations; he also drew attention to paragraphs 7 and 8 of document A/2809. TheIndian Government still had on its hands 87 or 88 prisoners of war who had notopted or had not expressed the desire to live in India. The Fifth Committee wouldin due course be asked to take appropriate financial action, and the member Stateswhich had maintained that prisoners of war should be allowed to settle in thecountry of their choice, would have to respond accordingly when approached.

The next document was the report of the United Nations Commission for theUnification and Rehabilitation of Korea (A/2711). He drew special attention tothe part of the report dealing with the bellicose attitude of President SyngmanRhee. Although it was not always appropriate to quote statements made bypoliticians and statesmen in the heat of the moment, the statements in questionhad been reiterated on 7 December of that month in Seoul, and they weredangerous. They were in complete contradiction with the stand taken by thepowerful nations which had a direct military alliance with the Republic of Koreaand which had been stressing the need for a peaceful settlement of the problem ofthe unification of Korea. There could be no doubt that in taking decisions whichdirectly or indirectly gave strength to such statements, the General Assemblywould be taking a dangerous attitude.

The following document was the report of the fifteen Powers dealing with theKorean Political Conference at Geneva (A/2786). It was merely a report on the

conference; but since it appeared from the document that the Secretary-Generalhad received a copy of the records of the meetings, those documents should beregarded as being implicitly part of the record. In view of the subjective nature ofdocument, it was important to refer to the original records of the meetings for acomparison of the different views.

THE GENEVA CONFERENCE COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE noconnection with the United Nations. In fact, it had grown out of GeneralAssembly resolution 711 (VII). In operative paragraph 5 of the resolution, theGeneral Assembly had stipulated that the United Nations should be informed ifagreement was reached and that it should be kept informed at other appropriatetimes. Consequently the report in document A/2786 should be treated as aninterim report of the proceedings of the Conference. Agreement had not beenreached, but the situation should not be regarded as final, and it was for the FirstCommittee to seek common ground between the views of the two parties.

On May 13, 1954, Sir Anthony Eden, United Kingdom representative at theConference, had spoken of certain principles as essential to agreement. The firstprinciple was that elections should be held for the formation of an all-KoreanGovernment. The second that the elections should truly reflect the people's will,taking account of the distribution of the population between North and South.Thirdly, the elections should be based on universal suffrage, secret ballot, andshould take place as soon as possible and in conditions of genuine freedom.Fourthly, the elections had to be internationally supervised, under the auspices ofthe United Nations. The countries selected did not necessarily have to be thosewhich had taken part in the Korean war; there could be a panel of countriesacceptable to the Conference. Fifthly, any plan for a settlement of the Koreanquestion had to provide the conditions in which foreign troops could bewithdrawn in conformity with General Assembly resolution 376 (V) of 7 October1950.

Mr. Molotov, who had represented the Soviet Union at Geneva, for his part, hadstressed the following points on 5 June: First, elections on the basis of universalsuffrage, a secret ballot and proportional representation would make it possible toset up an all-Korean legislative body. Secondly, the Geneva Conference shouldapprove in principle the creation of a supervisory body to watch over thoseelections throughout Korea. The composition and functions of that body and theprinciples on which it should base its activities would be considered additionally.No party had expressed a categorical wish concerning the system to be adopted inthat proportional representation, nor had any particular method of voting beenadvocated. Mr. Molotov's third principle related to the question of foreign troops,whose withdrawal he had suggested. Fourthly, all the participants of theConference were to agree that the all-Korean elections should be held under thesupervision of an international body.

A simple comparison of the two approaches, limited to those specific points,showed that there was no real discrepancy between them.

The French representative at Geneva had said that Korea should be unified withinits historical frontiers as a free, independent and democratic State. He had addedthat elections should be held throughout Korea to set up a single and trulyrepresentative Government for the whole of Korea. Those elections should becarried out in conditions of genuine freedom under international supervision.Furthermore, the French representative had said that the settlement of the Koreanquestion should provide for the withdrawal of foreign troops. Once unificationhad been achieved under proper conditions, the United Nations should be calledupon to approve the settlement reached.

At the Geneva Conference, the only suggestion at variance with the principles hehad just outlined had come from the South Korean representative. Definiteprogress had, then, in his delegation's opinion, been made at Geneva, and it wasfor that reason that, in one form or another, the efforts to achieve a peacefulsettlement of the Korean question in conformity with the objectives of the UnitedNations should be continued.

As the United Kingdom representative had said, the commission whichsupervised the elections, however composed, should be truly impartial and shouldbe so composed as to command the authority necessary for its decisions to becarried out. That had also been the Canadian representative's position.

His delegation felt strongly that the United Nations should not subscribe to anyhard and fast view on international supervision. With regard to Korea, it had adual role to play; first, through the United Nations Command, which wasconcerned with the military operations, and secondly, through the worldorganisation itself.

As the Swedish representative had said, any peaceful settlement presupposed anattempt to settle in a practical and realistic manner the problems that arose. Whilein the specific case it was true that China did not recognise the authority of theUnited Nations, it should not be overlooked that the United Nations did notrecognise China. That country could not be expected to feel bound by the Charterof an Organisation that did not recognise it as a member.

The question of international supervision could, however, be settled in a manneracceptable to all parties. It was possible to hold impartially supervised elections inKorea on the basis of the secret ballot and proportional representation."Proportion" did not mean "equal proportion," and there was no reason to thinkthat elections in South Korea would all result in the triumph of one party.Elections on the basis of proportional representation would therefore be likely tomake a compromise possible.

THE KOREAN POLITICAL CONFERENCE AT GENEVA had proceeded fromGeneral Assembly resolution 711 (VII) which, adopted by an overwhelmingmajority, had ratified the Armistice Agreement. That resolution had formallyembodied the idea, which had long existed, that a peaceful settlement in Koreashould be secured by negotiation. The fifteen-Power draft resolution(A/C.1/L.119) likewise referred to the Armistice Agreement. It was commonground, therefore, that the Agreement was still valid, and the settlement should beachieved by negotiation. That did not mean that the conditions essential for aresumption of negotiation existed at the moment, but it would be unwise andcontrary to the principles of the United Nations to inject into any decision that theCommittee took approval in advance of a particular form of settlement. When,therefore, the fifteen Powers, in their report (A/2786), took the view that thesupervision of the elections should be under the authority and auspices of theUnited Nations, that could not constitute more than a view put forward by oneparty, and it would not be wise to commit the First Committee to it.

The similarity of views on a large number of points that existed between theIndian draft resolution and the fifteen-Power draft resolution was, admittedly,encouraging. The main difference resided in the fact that the fifteen-Power draftresolution called upon the General Assembly to approve the report on theConference. While it was true that such approval could not mean much so long asthe Armistice Agreement remained in force, it could not fail to add to the generalconfusion. It would therefore be better to adopt his delegation's draft, underwhich the Assembly would merely take note of the report.

At all events, the unification of Korea continued to be the aim. North and SouthKorea complemented one another economically, and it was important to achieveunification, although not by coercion, by ill-considered measures or by war.History had shown that problems that seemed insoluble could ultimately besolved in a manner acceptable to both parties. It was in that spirit that hisdelegation had proposed its draft resolution, in which it felt that it had definedwhat should be the United Nations position. It was the duty of the United Nationsto strive to reconcile conflicting interests. A study of the records of the KoreanConference at Geneva supported the hope that negotiations would be resumedwhich would ultimately lead to the implementation of the Armistice Agreement.

Although the General Assembly had not thought fit, in August 1953, to accept thedraft resolution submitted by Canada, Australia and New Zealand (A/L.153) thatIndia should be invited to send representatives to the Conference - the object ofthe proposal being that countries not fully committed to either side should berepresented and act as conciliators at that Conference - his delegation had nonational pride in the matter. It merely hoped that the United States representativewould support its efforts to avoid a further deadlock...


November 21, 195582

(Summary)

Mr. Menon (India) pointed out that one member of the United NationsCommission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea (UNCURK) haddeclined to sign its report (A/2947), a fact which might deserve an explanation.

Referring to the basic objective of the Commission to bring about the unificationand rehabilitation of Korea, he noted that, while one part of that objective referredto the whole of Korea, the other, rehabilitation, applied only to one part of thecountry. In that connection, he suggested that the United Nations would have toaddress itself to the fact that casualties and devastation had been caused in bothparts of Korea, and that the causes of hunger and famine that existed on one sidewere, from the humanitarian point of view, of equal importance with those on theother.

With regard to certain details of UNCURK's report, it appeared that the greaterpart of the information contained therein - whether concerning the armistice or thealleged violations of the armistice, or the conditions in Korea - had come from theauthorities in the Republic of Korea or from the United Nations Command.

Mr. Menon recalled that the various resolutions adopted in the past on thequestion by the Security Council and later by the General Assembly had alwaysindicated that it was necessary to bring the two parts of Korea together. In order toachieve that aim, the co-operation of the two sides was required. To insist that theonly way to establish unity was through acceptance of an election supervised bythe United Nations amounted to imposing a settlement by one side on the other.The United Nations, however, was not incapable of acting impartially. It waspossible, as Sir Anthony Eden had suggested in Geneva, to find a body of membernations which had not taken part in the war to conduct the elections or to takeother steps towards unification in an impartial way.

The United Nations had followed the road of negotiation for a long time. Thepolitical questions in regard to Korea were specifically mentioned in theArmistice Agreement as being capable of political settlement. Paragraph 60 ofthe Armistice Agreement provided for a political conference. On August 28,1953, when the political conference had been decided upon, the GeneralAssembly, after a long debate, had decided [resolution 711 (VII)] that thereshould be a conference which was representative not only of the United Nations,but of the other side as well, and of those who were not on either side. It had thusbeen established that the political issues must be a matter for negotiations.

82 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Tenth Session, First Committee, pages 187-89

Mr. Menon reiterated the view of the Indian Government that the Korean PoliticalConference had not been terminated. That view was based on the fact that therehad been no report to the General Assembly by the Geneva Conference in thesense of resolution 711 (VII). There had been no communication of theproceedings of the Conference, although there had been a report on theConference. In the absence of an official document from the Conference itself, itwas thus possible to draw various inferences. It seemed to the Indian delegationthat in Geneva it had been agreed that there must be impartially andinternationally supervised elections. There had been no agreement that there mustbe United Nations supervision.

THE FIRST COMMITTEE WAS NOT A FORUM where the work of the NeutralNations Supervisory Commission could be examined. According to paragraphs24, 25 (g), 28, 29, and 41 of the Armistice Agreement, the Neutral NationsSupervisory Commission (NNSC) was responsible only to the Military ArmisticeCommission. The NNSC had submitted no report to the United Nations. Withoutan official report of that Commission, and in view of the fact that the ArmisticeAgreement provided for the settling through negotiations of any violations of thatAgreement, the Indian delegation was not prepared to discuss any allegedviolations. There might have been certain violations of the Armistice Agreement;but the Committee should not permit a great deal of passion to be introduced bythe suggestion that there had been serious violations. Had there been seriousviolations, there would have been war in Korea.

In that connection, it should be recalled that the President of the Republic ofKorea, speaking at the first anniversary ceremonies of the Korean Army TrainingCommand at Kwangju, had called for readiness to fight for unification soon. Thatattitude of the Republic of Korea was certainly not in conformity with theArmistice Agreement or with the laborious efforts which had been made by theUnited Nations from 1950 to 1952 to bring about a cessation of hostilities inKorea.

The report of UNCURK contained the statement that, while the United NationsCommand had faithfully observed the terms of the Armistice Agreement, theNorth had flagrantly violated them by a considerable military build-up,particularly by the illegal introduction of combat aircraft. The statement had notbeen supported by evidence from the NNSC. Furthermore, such an indictmentwas not part of the function of UNCURK. Its task was the task of healing, notthat of making an inquest or finding fault.

The NNSC was the keystone on which the arch of the Armistice Agreementrested at present; if it were pulled out, the whole edifice would fall down. But inNovember 1954 the Provost-Marshal General of the Republic of Korea had sent aletter to the Czechoslovak and Polish members of the Commission warning them

to leave the country peacefully within a week of the receipt of his message(A/2947, para. 15). Those members were part of the Commission, bearing,irrespective of the opinions of the countries or the persons, the imprimatur of theUnited Nations. The members of the Commission shared a great deal of thesanctity of the United Nations, and that state must be maintained. That official acton the part of the Republic of Korea, which was followed by demonstrationsagainst the Commission, was a unilateral violation of the Armistice Agreement.

The UNCURK report quite clearly brought out the fact that the Republic of Koreahad taken an antagonistic attitude to the principle and machinery of the ArmisticeAgreement and that the purpose of so doing was to tear the Armistice Agreementto pieces. Thus, one party, which was part of the United Nations Command,continued to pursue the policy of breaking up the armistice.

The immediate objective of the United Nations when it went into Korea had beento repel aggression. Its main objective, however, was the establishment of peacein Korea. In the opinion of the Government of India, the United Nations shouldactively encourage contacts between the two parts of Korea. It should permitthem, and if necessary, use what influence it had, to achieve unity from the toprather than the other way around. As a preliminary step, even before talkingabout elections, it should remove the idea that the unification of Korea couldcome by one side adopting the Constitution of the other, or by one side leading anarmy into the other side. There could not be a unification which was absorptionof one side by the other. That applied to the North as well as to the South.

The delegation of India deeply regretted the approach that was made from anattitude of non-reconciliation, an approach that was contrary to the efforts madeby the General Assembly in 1952 and thereafter, an approach that did not coincidewith paragraph 60 of the Armistice Agreement and did not tally with thefundamental objectives of the United Nations in Korea. The United Nations,therefore, must not simply reiterate every year its resolutions. It was veryimportant that the United Nations and the powerful countries which had a greatinfluence on its policies did not convey to the peoples of Asia that perhaps it wasa good thing to leave that running sore. It was important that the message of theUnited Nations should greet the vast multitudes of Asia, who had been recentlyawakened to nationalism, in the context of assisting them in their actions, in theirunity and in their rehabilitation. By simply passing a resolution referring back tothe past and saying it could do no more, the United Nations would admit itsfailure. That was the reason why the Indian delegation would not vote for thedraft resolution submitted by the United States (A/C.1/L.145).

THE GENEVA CONFERENCE, IN THE OPINION OF THE INDIANDELEGATION, had elicited a great many ideas and had shown that thesimilarities in the approach of the several sides were greater than thedissimilarities. It was common ground that if there must be unity in Korea, there

must be elections on a proportional basis, and a proportional basis did not meanequal proportions. It was common ground that those elections must be free. Thepoint of difference was with regard to ensuring that the elections would beproperly carried out. It would not detract from the prestige of the United Nationsif the supervision of those elections would not be formally the task of the UnitedNations. Many important problems had been settled outside the organisationalframework of the United Nations, although not outside the purposes of theCharter. Similarly, whatever machinery was set up for the supervision ofelections in Korea should be agreeable to the United Nations and in consonancewith the Charter. But the unification of Korea could not be less important thanwhat was alleged to be the prestige of the United Nations.

So far as the Indian delegation was concerned, it hoped that the Korean questionwould be considered for the last time at the present session. The time had cometo take action between sessions of the General Assembly in order to heal thatwound in Asia. The great leaders of the people, particularly the great leaders ofthe United Nations Command, must take the initiative so that all the forces and allthe channels available were utilised for that purpose. Discussions and the use ofdiplomatic channels were the necessary ingredients in the matter.

Secondly, the United Nations must introduce greater flexibility into its attitude. Itmust get away from the language of the ultimatum and must adopt the language ofreconciliation. Where there was conflict, it was only sharpened by threats, byultimatums and by adopting positions which would not help in solving theproblem. The delegation of India, therefore, pleaded for reconciliation. Itrequested the delegation of the United States to try to see its way to deleting fromits draft resolution the reference to resolution 811 (IX).

The delegation of India had no objection to the greater part of the United Statesdraft resolution. However, the draft resolution in recalling the resolution of theprevious year, meant that United Nations supervision was a condition precedent tothe unification of Korea. India would have no objection to United Nationssupervision if it were possible to persuade both parties to accept it. Korea couldnot be unified without the consent of the North and the South. The twoGovernments of Korea should therefore be encouraged to come together on suchproblems as they might discuss without any political or constitutionalcommitments. In that way, contacts might develop. One must perhaps reconcileoneself to the view that elections were still far off, that unification could not beaccomplished in one stage. But unification would never be accomplished ifnegotiations were not allowed to develop. Peace could not be brought about bypursuing counsels of conflict.

TURNING TO PART (C) OF THE AGENDA ITEM, relating to the problem ofex-prisoners of the Korean war, Mr. Menon stated that consultations had beentaking place between the Government of Brazil and the Government of India with

regard to the Brazilian offer to receive those ex-prisoners who opted to live inBrazil. He also noted the offer made by the Government of Argentina to receivesome of those ex-prisoners and expressed the thankfulness of the Government ofIndia to both Governments and to the Secretary-General for his efforts in thematter. In that connection, Mr. Menon remarked that, although the Governmentof India did not anticipate any difficulty, the ex-prisoners remained in India untilthey were resettled. The problem must therefore be regarded as a standingproblem.

Referring to a request by the Government of the Republic of Korea that threeSouth Korean representatives be allowed to interview Koran ex-prisoners in India,and ascertain from them their wishes regarding repatriation, Mr. Menon statedthat Government of India was responsible only to the two Commands, and not toany particular Government, for the final disposition of the ex-prisoners. TheGovernment of India, therefore, suggested that the South Korean Governmentshould make its approach through the Secretary General of the United Nations.Furthermore, under paragraph of 11 of the annex to the Armistice Agreement, theex-prisoners of the Korean war could either elect to go to a neutral country or askto be repatriated to their fatherlands. The word "fatherland" in that paragraphmeant either China or North or South Korea, according to the Command to whichthose ex-prisoners belonged at the time they were taken prisoner. TheGovernment of India had thus turned down the request of a South Korean whowanted to be sent to North Korea, and that of a North Korean who wanted to besent to South Korea.

According to the latest statement of options of October 15, 1955, there were only2 South Koreans, 74 North Koreans, and 12 Chinese ex-prisoners in India. Ofthose, 4 North Koreans and 2 Chinese had been repatriated in 1955, according totheir options and the terms of the Armistice Agreement. The ex-prisoners hadexpressed their gratitude to the Government of India for the affection, generosityand kindness which they had received in India.

Mr. Menon concluded by stating that, while India recognised neither South norNorth Korea, it desired to live in peace with both the people of the North and thepeople of the South. It was its desire that, before too long, these people wouldbelong to one unified, independent and prosperous country.


January 7, 195783

(Summary)

83 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Eleventh Session, First Committee, pages26-27

Mr. Menon (India) dealt first with part (b) of the agenda item.84 He stated thatthe expression "ex-prisoners" was purely descriptive and that his Government hadnever agreed that the persons involved were ex-prisoners: they were peoplebrought over from Korea under conditions in which India had no other option.Summarising his Government's report (A/3203), he noted that, out of a total of 88prisoners, 2 had been repatriated to China and 6 to North Korea; 55 had been sentto Brazil and 9 to Argentina in accordance with their option: 16 former prisonersremained in India. Of these, 9 had opted for Mexico; 2 had opted for Argentina,but had been found medically unfit; and 5 had opted for India. Five of those whohad opted for Mexico now wished to go to Argentina. He requested theSecretary-General to pursue the discussions on the subject in order that theremight be no further delay. He had been in continuous touch with the Governmentof Mexico and expressed the hope that that Government would soon take afavourable decision.

Referring to the report of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission (A/2641),he noted that it had not been discussed by the General Assembly at any timealthough his Government had on many occasions suggested such a discussion.His Government had not pressed for a discussion for fear that it might lead to aacrimonious controversy which would not assist in resolving the Korean question.Hence, he stated on the behalf of his Government that the report was still beforethe United Nations and should be taken up at an appropriate time.

TURNING TO PART (a) OF THE KOREAN ITEM, he stated that the UnitedStates draft resolution was not likely to achieve the desired objective. Hisdelegation, having failed to persuade the United States delegation to change thedraft resolution so as to enable India to support it, had decided not to move anyamendments. His delegation's reason was its anxiety that there should be as littlecontroversy as possible. He did not think such a resolution would make anydifference to the problem which had to be settled by a political discussion on arealistic basis. Commenting on the draft resolution he pointed out that in operativeparagraph 2 the principle of free and general elections in Korea, which hisGovernment heartily supported, was limited by the particular method embodied inthe final declaration of the Geneva Conference, namely, that the elections shouldbe under United Nations supervision. The door would have been left more openfor achieving the objective of unification, had the paragraph concluded with theword "objectives."

Operative paragraph 3 went further than previous resolutions in nominatingUNCURK as the authority supervising elections throughout Korea, which,however had not been provided for. In his view such a decision was notcalculated either to promote the purposes of the United Nations or to achieveKorean unification. To create an election commission as a by-product of a

84 "Problem of ex-prisoners of the Korean War: report of the Government of India”

resolution would be a very great mistake since it could not work and the questionof supervision would have to be decided after the political discussion. Such a stepwould move the problem back to the position in 1950, when the Commission hadbeen appointed to supervise elections all over Korea. He recalled that the NorthKoreans had at that time refused to let the Commission in. Paragraph 3 also askedall States and authorities to assist the Commission to enter North Korea to forcetheir way in. The matter could be effectively achieved only by a meeting ofminds between the two sides. He drew a distinction between the principles of theCharter, for which his Government had the highest respect, and any particularresolution, remarking that any decision made must work in the context of thetime.

Korea had been divided in 1945 as a result of the power politics of the greatPowers. Its division into North and South Korea had not been brought abouteither by the Koreans or by the United Nations, nor had it been brought about bythe war. The future of Korea lay in the coming together of North and South withthe consent of their peoples. The objective of all decisions of the United Nationshad been to bring about by peaceful means the establishment of a unified,independent, democratic Korea. There had been no reference to unification byforce by any party except the Republic of Korea. He then cited statements madein 1955 by Mr. Syngman Rhee, President of the Republic of Korea, during a visitto the United States in which he had called upon the American people to bringabout the unification of Korea by force.

In pursuing its fundamental objective of unifying Korea, the United Nations hadalways proceeded from the assumption that two Koreas existed - not that the twoKoreas would exist forever, but that there were in fact two Koreas, which must bebrought together in the future. Yet at the previous meeting the representative ofthe Republic of Korea had reiterated that the Armistice Agreement should beabrogated. Only the very firm stand taken by the United States had prevented thetermination of the armistice ever since its conclusion. The Republic of Korea hadnot signed the Armistice Agreement, although it had been one of the belligerents,and was strictly speaking still at war with North Korea, since there was no peacebetween them.

THE OBJECTIVE OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN KOREA had been to haltaggression at the thirty-eighth parallel and to establish an armistice as a first steptowards unification. If the United Nations was to accomplish its task ofunification, direct negotiations between the two sides were necessary, or theUnited Nations must lay down plans whereby such negotiations would bepossible. He drew the attention of the United States, in particular, to the fact thatthere was no great difficulty in doing that. He quoted statements made at theGeneva Korean Political Conference by the representatives of Belgium, Franceand Canada, which referred, inter alia, to the possibility of negotiations and tofree elections in order to unify Korea, to be held under a form of international

supervision acceptable to the United Nations. His Government considered freeelections - including the secret ballot, freedom of propaganda, universal suffrage,and sufficient time for campaigning - essential to the unification of Korea.International supervision was important, but that did not necessarily mean UnitedNations supervision, though even United Nations supervision was capable ofvarious forms which could be made acceptable to the other side. Supervision by abody of nations which was acceptable to both sides and in which the veto questionwould not arise was always possible. Peaceful elections required co-operation bythe machinery of administration on both sides.

An election meant election to some body. The South Korean Governmentproposed election to its Parliament, but that was not the United Nations position.Some form of constituent assembly was necessary which could create aconstitution, and that required the consent of the other side. Decision on thequestion of the number of representatives from each side should be based roughlyon the population. North Korea had a small population, South Korea had a largeone. It was up to the two parties to come to some agreement. He felt that thepressure of world public opinion would lead North Korea to accept the idea.Then the constituent assembly would decide either to accept one of the twoconstitutions or to find some other method, with the two administrations carryingon in the interim.

With regard to the admission of Korea to the United Nations, his Government hadsubscribed to the admission of new members at the tenth session on the basis thatit did not include any country in which there was a problem of division. Thatapplied to Germany, Vietnam and Korea.

Regarding freedom in North Korea, he pointed out that it was difficult for theUnited Nations to obtain information about what was going on there. It wasequally necessary to make inquiries concerning the other side. He cited an articleby Dorothy W. Allan of the Korean Affairs Institute, Washington, printed in theWashington Post of May 21, 1956, raising questions about certain actions of theSouth Korean authorities.

He expressed the hope that the United States would encourage the idea ofinformal contacts between the two sides with a view to developing and unitingtheir common country. His delegation had refrained from submittingamendments to the United States draft resolution in order to avoid wrangling.The real problem was not a matter of formal amendments or finding words; it wasa question of the willingness of both North and South Korea to unify, recognisingthe differences that at present existed between them and had to be reconciled, andabandoning ideas of destroying the Armistice Agreement and of relying onreinforcements in the South and on alleged stockpiling of arms in the North. Thetask of seeking unification must go on because to leave Korea divided was to addone more point of possible explosion in the world.

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly on November 15,

195785

One cannot say that either this item or the approach to it made from any side orthe debate provides any hope for the establishment of what are called UnitedNations objectives, either in North or South Korea.

My delegation has no intention whatsoever of reintroducing into this debate anyfurther element of acrimony.

We are not discussing Korea; the Korean people do not come into this, it is a coldwar debate. This has nothing to do with Korea and it has been so for years.

Before I deal with the main political aspect of it, there are two matters which Ihave to refer to so that they may be read into the record. One relates to theremaining prisoners in India.

THERE ARE PERHAPS SOME FIVE PRISONERS WHO HAVE NOTSETTLED DOWN IN INDIA. With regard to these we are negotiating with theGovernments of Mexico and Argentina. I have no doubt that that problem will beresolved. That is why, unlike our procedures of previous years, we have notintroduced an item on prisoners. After all, there are only five men. But five mencan make quite a lot of difficulty. They are Korean prisoners, but we think thatdirect negotiations through the usual channels, through the Governments ofArgentina and Mexico, will resolve this problem. At the same time, I think thatthis Assembly owes a debt of gratitude to the Government of Brazil for taking acertain number of these men - a small number it is true - which has reduced theproblem to a very small size. Argentina has also taken some of these prisoners.Therefore, there is no lack of desire on the part of the countries concerned – eitherBrazil, Argentina or Mexico - to assist in this not necessarily political aspect ofthis problem.

I am happy to say that some Korean prisoners opted for Indian nationality subjectto any future decisions. They, according to the custom of our country, have towork for a living and they are all engaged in engineering occupations for whichthey were trained by the Indian army during the last three years while they werethere. But when I say the Indian army, I mean the non-combatant part of theIndian army. These men are being employed in the telephone industry and inrelated industries. We have made no use of them for military or para-militarypurposes. From the Western point of view their emoluments, and probably eventheir conditions of life, may not be as good as some of you would like, but we are


a poor country. I think they are doing better than our own people from that pointof view; I do not say from the point of view of work, so there will be no difficultywith them...

NOW WE COME TO THE POLITICAL ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION

which is the purpose of the draft resolution86 and the debate. I request theCommittee to give its attention to paragraph 5 of this report (of the UnitedNations Commission for Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea) which states:

“There has been no change in the basic prospects for realising thefundamental objective of the United Nations in Korea, namely, to bringabout the establishment of a unified, independent and democraticgovernment for the whole Korean peninsula." (A/3672).

Thus after six or seven years, our own Commission has to confess that theUnited Nations objective has not been established. It is possible to allocateblame and praise, but the fact does remain that even in a problem that is smallcompared, shall we say, with disarmament or other things which we have beendealing with, we have not been able to get anywhere near it.

Today we have a draft resolution before us which is a reaffirmation of theresolution passed in 1954, which was reaffirmed in 1955 and 1956. We areasked to reaffirm it for the fourth time, and I am afraid that this will not take usany nearer solution...

My delegation has no desire to elaborate on this subject except to say that theunification of Korea and the establishment of Korean nationality, if the majorityof Koreans wish it, is not only desirable but necessary from the point of view ofthe stability of the Far East and as opening the way to the solution of otherquestions. I have no doubt that once some of the other cold war propositions areout of the way this proposition of Korea, which appears so tough and soincapable of solution, will, however much to our surprise, be solved overnight...

I do not say that every country here can claim - and we cannot claim - to beobserving the Charter 100 per cent. There are many countries here whoseGovernments are not based upon the will of the people. The United Nations isfounded on that basis, without reference to the internal characteristics ofgovernments. But it is possible to bring the North and the South Koreanstogether. The country has been divided at the 38th parallel, not because theKoreans wanted to divide it but because the Russians and the Americans wantedto, so that it has nothing to do with the Koreans. Thus it is possible to bringabout the unification of Korea on the basis of understanding between the twosides, on the basis of free elections, if necessary on the basis of a constituent

86 Draft resolution proposed by the United States and ten other countries

assembly, on the basis of continually working together or on the basis of aconfederation or of any kind of solution if the Koreans are left to themselves.But in view of the position we have taken, my Government is in support ofinternational elections.

My colleague from Ceylon was right in saying that the United Nations has aspecial responsibility in this area because the United Nations declared NorthKorea as aggressor. It waged war on this account, and we supported it.Therefore, my Government is in favour of elections under internationalsupervision. But I would ask at what time during the difficult days was UnitedNations supervision exercised over the whole of Korea? Never. The armisticewas not brought about under United Nations supervision. The United Nations isone of the parties, represented by the United Nations Command, represented bythe United States.

I FEEL SURE THAT THE GENIUS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, the desireof the North Koreans to unite - all this will bring about a solution pretty soon.But it can only be brought about if there is a recognition, which fortunately thereis, that the North Koreans are a minority taken as a whole. I do not say that allSouth Koreans have the same views, but if they could elect their own parliament- or whatever their assembly is called - and not have to rely on outside assistancefor maintaining the separation on either side, then we would get unity...

It is not possible in the present circumstances to obtain a solution - if solution isdesired by everybody concerned - of the division of Korea into North and Southexcept in terms of the two sides nominating their own representatives andfinding, either on the basis of the armistice agreement or on the basis of theNeutral Nations Repatriation Commission, the third element that is necessary.This is how the whole Korean business has proceeded. That is how the Koreanwar was brought to an end. This is not in any way to disparage the position ofthe United Nations. The United Nations has two functions in this matter. First,it is one of the combatants. Second, it is the custodian of the Charter in the wayof harmonising interests.

Is it more important to unite Korea? Is it more important that that unity shouldcome about on a basis where even a minority, but a considerable minority, oneither side will not only acquiesce but agree? Are there any valid objections toseeking an election of this character which can be discussed as among theleaders of the two sides? I have no doubt that all the public statements made bythe North Koreans and for that matter, by the South Koreans will be of acharacter that do not give us much hope. But the Koreans are a patriotic people.They want to see the unification of their country. They have, as the result of agreat war, been able to liberate themselves from Japanese imperialism. They hadhopes of being a country, and I am sure that modern Japan will assist them torehabilitate themselves. Post-war Japan will do so - that is our expectation.

Therefore, while nothing can be done this year in view of the positions that areheld, we hope we will get to the kernel of this proposition - that is, internationalelections. "International elections" does not necessarily mean only one type;there are several types of international elections. Any of them may be effectiveso long as the international element is maintained, and, so long as impartialityand integrity are maintained. We have tried that in the Korean issue. It enabledthe war to be terminated after three years of the bloodiest slaughter on bothsides. And three million Koreans died; that is what we have to bear in mind.Three million Koreans, whether from the north or the south, are human beings.They were killed in the war. It is quite true that a great many nationals of othercountries were killed too, but nothing like that number. Both sides of thecountry have been devastated, more particularly the north.

MY DELEGATION NATURALLY EXPRESSES ITS OWN VIEWS, but weare not so proud as not to be able to quote other authorities on this question. TheForeign Minister of France, in 1954, when the climate was much more torridthan it is now, said at Geneva:

"For the moment, in the same conciliatory spirit of which it has alreadygiven ample proof in the course of the parallel negotiations over Indo-China, the French delegation lends its support in principle to the ideasalready expressed here by one of our Chairmen and which can besummarised as follows: (a) Korea should be unified within its historicalfrontiers, as a free, independent and democratic State; (b) for this purposeelections should be held throughout the whole Korean territory to set up asingle and truly representative government for the whole of Korea; (c) theelections should be carried out in conditions of genuine freedom underinternational supervision;" -

The French are extremely logical and they are very, very constructive when theircolonial interests are not concerned.

"(d) the settlement of the Korean question should provide for thewithdrawal of foreign troops;" -

The twenty-one divisions, or whatever it is, on one side, and what therepresentative of the Philippines referred to just now, the mounting of armswhich he alleges on the other side - you do not get free elections unless, ofcourse, those arms are for the purpose of the security of the country.

"(e) once unification is achieved under proper conditions, the UnitedNations should be called on to give their approval to the settlement thusreached."

Is this not a practical proposition? No one wants to elbow the United Nationsout. What the French Foreign Minister submitted in 1954 was: Let there beelections under international supervision, and bring about unification; bothbefore that and after that the United Nations can be called to give its sanctionand its ratification. That appears to us the approach to Korea that is possible.

There is another aspect of this question which should not be forgotten. TheSouth Korean Government is not a party to the Armistice Agreement. TheArmistice Agreement was signed by the United Nations Command. Somerepresentatives may recall that there were repudiations of this at that time. But,however that may be, it is not necessary to rake all that up. But, if Koreanunification is really required, then I think that, at least as a challenge, a fairinternational machinery for elections, as suggested by the Foreign Minister ofFrance in 1954, should be offered to both sides. That is our view. We do notthink that view will gain the majority of votes in this Assembly as it is at presentconstituted.

We are thankful that there is no war taking place and, unless someone provokesit, neither the North Koreans nor the South Koreans are capable of bringingabout a war which will shake the world.

Therefore, our view is that we would have hoped that, another year havingpassed, a new type of resolution would come up. We entered into nonegotiations about this matter, no discussions about it, because we thought thetime was not ripe.

THE RESOLUTION WILL, NO DOUBT, PASS. We cannot support it for thesimple reason that the solution is not in keeping with the Armistice Agreement.The Armistice Agreement was not dictated by the United Nations Command.The United Nations Command represents the United Nations. It is one of thetwo parties - one of the fifty-fifty parties in the stability that obtains. Now, howcan it be that, when it comes to a settlement, that can be forgotten, but at thesame time the substance of it can be obtained?

There are countries which are outside the United Nations. There are countrieswithin the United Nations which are not deeply involved in the cold war. Thereis enough in the whole negotiations after December 1952 which warrants thebelief that the United States has not only the capacity but the willingness, if it sodesires, to find a solution to this matter. But I do not think that we assist asolution by any recrimination of any kind.

We have no comments to make on the report of UNCURK, except this one, andthat is the only part that is important: I think that, when United Nations reliefand rehabilitation can reach only half of the country, that in itself is acommentary on the whole situation, whoever is at fault. I think that from now

on we ought to address ourselves to the proposition - and I hope that by the timewe meet next year the world may have improved and it may be possible toestablish the objectives of the United Nations, namely, the unification of Koreawithin its national frontiers on a representative basis, under elections conducteddemocratically and under international auspices, where there is no question ofthe elections not being straight...

My delegation will therefore take no part in voting on this resolution, becausewe have no desire to aggravate this situation. We think it is not a resolution thatdoes a lot of credit to the United Nations. That is our view...

I WISH TO REFER TO ONLY ONE OTHER MATTER. The Government ofIndia wishes to reserve its right to discuss the report of the Neutral NationsRepatriation Commission. This report has been submitted to the Secretary-General, but it has never been discussed because it has been generally agreedthat such a discussion would involve a great deal of bitterness and acrimony.We must not forget that there has been considerable "monkey business" on bothsides on various occasions. It has been generally agreed that a discussion of thereport would raise problems which, although they are political problems, haveno direct relation to this issue, technically speaking.

The report of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission could be discussedunder the present item. We desire, however, to suspend the discussion of thereport, and have not introduced an item in this regard, as our small contributiontowards maintaining an atmosphere in which there is a lack of disharmony. Forthe record, however, we must reserve our right to discuss the report at thissession, or next year, or in 20 years.

PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE OF STATES

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, December 13,195787

[In 1957, the General Assembly included in its agenda an item entitled"Declaration concerning the peaceful co-existence of States" at the request of theSoviet Union which presented a draft resolution.

A draft resolution was also presented by India, Sweden and Yugoslavia. OnDecember 14, 1957, the General Assembly adopted this resolution by 77 votes to0, with one abstention; the USSR did not press for a vote on its draft.

In this resolution - resolution 1236 (XII) - the General Assembly realising theneed "to develop peaceful and tolerant relations among States, in conformity withthe Charter, based on mutual respect and benefit, non-aggression, respect foreach other’s sovereignty, equality and territorial integrity and non-intervention inone another’s internal affairs," called upon all States "to make every effort tostrengthen international peace, and to develop friendly and co-operative relationsand settle disputes by peaceful means as enjoined in the Charter of the UnitedNations..."]

...While we have taken no initiative in this matter, both in the course of thegeneral debate in the Assembly and in the course of the debate of this item here,reference has been made to the policy of my country and to what are now calledthe five principles and to various other matters in which we are deeply andprofoundly interested.88 In fact, they form the basis of our approach to ourrelations with other countries in the world and to international problems generally.

At the same time, I should like to say that the Government of India attaches noimportance either to the numeral "five" or to any particular formulations of it;the content is more important than anything else. That we live together in thisworld, either as individuals or as nations, has no particular merit because thereis no escape from this planet; so, in one form or another, so long as we aresurviving we shall be existing. That is not sufficient. It is necessary for humanbeings in our civilised communities to live together in mutual tolerance, and Iwould submit to this Committee that while it may not so appear now, what weare actually discussing is merely the extension of that to the international field.In civilised communities, individuals and groups, people of different races andbackgrounds, of different opinions and different political parties, have to find

87 From: Foreign Affairs Record, New Delhi, December 1957, pages 240-24688 The five principles of peaceful co-existence were originally formulated in an agreementbetween India and China in 1954. They were subsequently endorsed by many governments andinternational organisations.

ways of adjusting and tolerating each other, sometimes of suffering each other.And, therefore, what we are now discussing is the extension of that democraticprinciple into the field of international affairs...

I said a while ago that we did not claim any particular sanctity either for thenumeral "five" or for the label of "principles," or even for the phraseologycontained in them. Indeed, in the various statements of the Government of Indiaand of other countries of the East, West, North and South there have beenvariations of the phraseology at the Bandung Conference. We go further and saythat neither the present generation of Indians nor our country has a prescriptiveright in this matter. I will not go so far back as the edict issued 2,500 years ago,which is not only of historical interest but of sentimental interest to us, but we arenear enough to the Western world, and I have found in the well documentedpublication, the Department of State Bulletin of the United States, that as far backas November 26, 1941, the United States proposed adoption of a draft mutualdeclaration of policy. This contains the fundamental principles upon which theirrelations with each other and with other countries were to be based, and thephraseology was practically the same as that adopted by India and others. Theprinciples were: the inviolability of the territorial integrity and the sovereignty ofall nations; non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries; equality,including the equality of commercial opportunity and treatment; and relianceupon international co-operation and conciliation for the prevention and pacificsettlement of controversies and for the improvement of international conditions bypeaceful methods. Those principles were formulated before the conclusion of thewar, and perhaps if this declaration had not remained in draft, the course of pasthistory might have been different, but that is by the way...

In the course of the debate, reference has been made to the current history of thoseso-called "five principles," and so far as my country is concerned, in one form oranother they have been agreed to and subscribed to, either directly or indirectly,by a large number of States on all continents. There are 20 to 21 countries. Ihope I have not left anyone out, in Asia, in Africa, in Europe and on the Americancontinent which are direct signatories of these principles. The countries in Europeinclude the Federal Republic of Germany; in America, they include Chile...

So far as Western Europe is concerned, the Prime Minister of the UnitedKingdom, during his visit to India, expressed himself in favour of those principlesand of our policy based upon it.

The United States Ambassador to India, speaking to us on September 27, 1955,explained that the United States did not consider strength the ultimate answer toworld peace. He adhered to the five principles "in words and in purposes" - thoseare his words. He stated that these, which India had enunciated, were but anotherexpression of what had already been expressed in many treaties since the last warand in the United Nations Charter.

About the same time, in October, the United Kingdom Secretary of State forCommonwealth Relations, Earl Home, said:

"This brings me to the point where I believe it is possible to state withtruth that the objectives of foreign policy of the United Kingdom and Indiaand other Commonwealth countries are identical. Mr. Nehru has himselfnamed principles of living together in world society to which we have allsubscribed."

I am not trying to make this a testimony meeting. Our country claims noprescriptive rights, no rights of originality and no monopoly with regard to theseideas. In fact, it does not come to us either as a revelation or as something weinherited from some unknown source. It is purely a pragmatic approach to aproblem.

In the United Nations more populous countries and less populous countries haveall expressed these opinions. Mr. Thors of Iceland, speaking at San Francisco,on the tenth anniversary of the United Nations, said on behalf of Iceland:

"The world has two roads to choose between, and this has already beensaid here and will be said over and over again. One is the road of disputes,disagreements, discord and conflicts. This is bound, sooner or later, tolead to war, to ruins and to the extinction of civilisation. The other roadleads to peaceful coexistence and co-operation between all nations underthe dome of the United Nations. There is practically no limit to theprosperity and the well-being that can be given to humanity if the leadersof our world will agree to live in peace and understanding."

...The approach of India in this matter is, as the representative of Finland saidyesterday, that we do not claim to prescribe what is good for other countries.We simply say that this is the kind of approach we like to make, and we hopethat if it were acceptable to the others it would lead to better relations. Inpursuance of this policy we have tried to establish, and in a very considerablemeasure have succeeded in establishing, close friendships with countries ofentirely different persuasions. This applies not merely to visits of culturaldelegations, and things of that kind.

For instance, in our very considerable economic development, such countrieswith divergent systems as the United States, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakiaand Germany have all come to our assistance, and our relations are based uponmutual respect.

During the visit of my Prime Minister to Moscow, when a joint statement wasmade, the question obviously was discussed in regard to ideologies, and I thinkthere is no use disguising the fact that there has been apprehension - and to acertain extent it prevails in the non-communist world - that there may still be the

practice of imposing ideologies upon friendly nations. So the original draft ofthe so-called five principles was changed in Moscow in its article 3, whichreads:

"No interference in each other’s internal affairs for any reason of aneconomic, political, or ideological character."

So that by adherence to these ideas we do not in any way abandon our principlesor our approach. We are not surprised, although we may sometimes bedistressed, at the degree of heat that is introduced into the controversy.

Soon after my Prime Minister returned from Moscow, Mr. Mohammed Ali, whowas then Prime Minister of Pakistan, said in an interview in Calcutta on June 24,1955, that the addition of this third clause - that is, the one I read out just now -was more comprehensive and was a great improvement on previous statements,and he agreed with it. Thus, whether it be on the European continent, in greatparts of America or in Asia, there has been, irrespective of the differences thatexist, a desire to implement the purposes of the United Nations Charter in thesemore concrete terms...

We think, at this stage of the Assembly, especially in view of the developmentsthat have taken place, that if we could all come together - not merely to cover acrack in granite with a piece of tissue paper, but with some desire for a commonagreement of this character - that might assist to a small extent in the furtherattempts towards the lowering of tensions or in finding ways out of otherunresolved problems.

Mr. Cabot Lodge89 said this morning that declarations are not enough; that tonesare not enough; that deeds are necessary. No one would challenge thatstatement. But we think that even deeds are not adequate, because if a deed is tobe understood or done in the right way by the doer himself it requires acorrectness of approach, and therefore even an approach which is called a tonehas its value.

In the attempt we are now making we are not in any way questioning the doubtsand apprehensions that exist in the minds of various countries, but we think thatif the General Assembly were to approve the declaration unanimously it wouldserve to rally the forces of world opinion and the minds of people to its mainpurposes - not that the Charter is not adequate, but as a constant reminder...

The resolution that will be submitted, the proposals we are discussing, thewhole of this subject, is something which, so far as our people areconcerned, has entered deep into their hearts and minds, and the supportthat the Assembly gives will be a great inspiration, particularly to thepeople who have recently come into freedom - undeveloped economically,

89 Henry Cabot Lodge, United States Representative to the United Nations

having great faith in the United Nations, and looking forward to a worldwhich will not be rent by war. But, in spite of all their differences, andthere are many ways in which we ourselves fall by the way side in regardto these principles - we do not try to conceal that fact - but it sets a line, adirection, and for that reason we ask for unanimous support and we hopewe will get it.

FRANCO SPAIN


[Mr. Menon made this statement in explanation of the vote of the Indiandelegation in favour of resolution 39(I) on relations with Spain,recommending that the Franco Government of Spain be debarred frommembership in international agencies associated with the United Nations,and that all members of the United Nations immediately recall theirambassadors from Madrid.]

The delegation of India desires that the voice of India should be heard from thisrostrum in support of this very important resolution, in which this Assembly callsupon member States to take initial action which will enable the peoples of Spainto participate in this Assembly.

The Government of India would have been prepared to support a resolution whichwent much farther than this one, but we are anxious to add the voice of ourcountry and of our people, and the support of the Government of India, to thepresent resolution, which is likely, we hope, to attain a fair degree, a veryconsiderable degree, of agreement in its present form.

We have heard, in this debate and in the debate in the Committee, the word"intervention" mentioned time after time. Some of us, many of us, have beenassociated with the issue of Spain and the struggle of the people to establish agovernment there and to resist fascist aggression. We are familiar with anotherword, and that is "non-intervention." We know where non-intervention led us. Itresulted in Hitler and Mussolini being able to rehearse in Spain their war on thecontinent and to bring havoc to the world a few years later. So, today, we areadding our voice to proclaim our support for this first step, however limited,which will enable the people of Spain to liberate themselves and join thecommunity of nations as a respected member of the family of nations.

For that reason, we are glad to support the resolution and also to proclaim thatthis issue is not one which concerns only Latin America, or America as awhole, or Europe, but the peoples of the entire world.

TIBET


[The Federation of Malaya and Ireland raised the question of Tibet in theGeneral Assembly in 1959, when the Dalai Lama addressed a communication tothe Secretary-General complaining of the violation of fundamental human rightsof the Tibetans. The two countries presented a draft resolution calling for respectfor the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and for their distinctivecultural and religious life. On October 21, 1959, the Assembly adopted the draftas resolution 1353 (XIV).

Mr. Menon made the following speech stating the position of India and explainingabstention on the resolution.]

...Our approach is not only coloured, it is conditioned, by our emotionalbackgrounds and connections with the territory we now call Tibet. It emergesinto history, so far as we are concerned, only in very recent times, somewhereabout the seventh century of this era. Traditionally our connections with Tibet goback to the emergence of the earliest strains of our civilisation, which weresupposed to emerge from Central Asia, from the shores of the Tibetan lakes. Butin more recent times, when, after the Buddha had given his gospel to India, or hadlived his life in India - about ten or twelve centuries afterwards - Buddhism wentinto Tibet. At that time the Tibetans were not part of any other country - that wasover 1,200 years ago - and from that time onwards there have been religious,cultural and other relations between Tibet and India.

Then we emerge into the second half of the thirteenth century, when the newTibet, as we may call it, takes its place in history, with its chequered progress andwith its many vicissitudes. In the thirteenth century the Mongols conqueredTibet. So, whatever views we may hold about present governments oradministrations of people, whether of Tibet or China, we would be going againsthistory if we were to say that this was the first time that violence or war orconquest had been the fate of this part of the world. In the thirteenth century theMongol conquerors established themselves as emperors of China, and theyconquered Tibet. Then came a series of other events and three or four centuriesafterwards the Dalai Lama of Tibet, who was originally and basically a religioushead, became the political head of Tibet.

In 1640, after overrunning Tibet, Gusri Khan appointed the fifth Dalai Lama asthe political head of Tibet. The effective suzerainty of China over Tibet was not

90 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Fourteenth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages517-21

even then established, but by the eighteenth century China had obtained effectivesuzerainty over this territory.

Then we pass on to the period of modern imperialism. In 1871, soon after theFranco-Prussian War, the British were apprehensive of Russian designs in CentralAsia - this may sound as if we were talking about today - and then startedinteresting themselves in Tibet. In the period 1873 to 1899 they sought variousconcessions in Tibet, not by negotiating with the Tibetans, but by negotiating withthe Chinese Government. In 1904, after a military campaign, they forced theTibetans to accept some of the agreements they had previously negotiated withthe Chinese. We pass on from that period until we come to 1907, when theAnglo-Russian Convention was signed concerning China’s suzerainty over Tibet.This was largely negotiated at that time by the British authorities as a safeguardagainst unilateral conduct by Czarist Russia. It was not replaced in the years thatfollowed. In this 1907 Convention Chinese suzerainty was reiterated. Then therefollowed the conference of Simla in 1914 at which the parties who signed, orrather initialled, these treaties, were Tibet and Great Britain, and that also showsTibet as being under the conditional suzerainty of China.

But for the purpose of this discussion my Government is not so much concernedwith the legal niceties or even the textual implications of the Charter as such.Therefore, it is not our intention to raise the question of whether the subject mayor may not be discussed or whether it may be barred by the doctrine of domesticjurisdiction. We ourselves would not raise that issue, even if we were taking amore active part in this debate. We think the Assembly has a right to discuss thisif it so decides, but discussion does not mean intervention, and we have alwaysheld that point of view. Therefore, while we did not participate in the voting onthe admission of this item, we have no desire to raise the question of domesticjurisdiction for that reason.

In the document before us (A/4234), there is the explanatory memorandumexplaining the request for the introduction of this item by the Governments ofMalaya and Ireland, and there is a reference in it to an appeal from the DalaiLama to the Secretary-General of September 9, 1959.

THE DALAI LAMA’S APPEAL DEALS WITH TWO ASPECTS OF THEPROBLEM. One is dealt with in the first series of points one to six: this dealswith political issues. It seeks to establish the Tibetans’ status and seeksrecognition of their sovereignty as a result of our discussion. The second seriesdeals with the second aspect of the situation, that is with present conditions, withhuman rights and atrocities and things of that character. The memorandumsubmitted by the two sponsors deals only with the second series of points.Therefore, in what the Assembly is seized of now there are no political issues, andtherefore it is unnecessary for my Government to argue this question at all. So faras human rights are concerned, we state without any reservations whatsoever that

we do not have any standards different from what we have advocated from thisplatform and in a small measure have tried to practise in our political and otherrelations.

Therefore, from the point of view of the consideration of these matters while wedid not support the inscription of this item, for reasons which I shall mention in amoment, we do not want in any way to put forward legalistic objections and to tryto build up a procedural barrier.

Consideration of this problem must, first of all, have as its central theme theinterests of the Tibetan people and of the Dalai Lama himself. So far as we areconcerned, there have been troubles in Tibet not only in the old days but in recenttimes also. That is to an extent a part of the great changes that are taking place inthe world. But we would ourselves have liked to have those changes take placemore peacefully, with less cruelty, perhaps with less upset. Also, we do notsubscribe to the view that these changes are merely the overthrow of certainfeudal lords or otherwise. If these upsets have to come, they should come, so faras possible, with the least degree of violence. But, while we may wish that, wehave no right to impose non-violence with violence. That is to say, we cannotargue non-interference with interfering. Therefore, all we can do is to express ourpoint of view and, without violence to our foreign policy and without violence toour relations with other countries, unless there is justification for it, do what wecan within our own capacities.

India inherited the British position in Tibet in 1947 - that is to say, that Tibet wasunder Chinese suzerainty. In 1954, we entered into an agreement which was notan agreement in regard to the political status of Tibet as such, but was anagreement relating primarily to trade matters. India has a degree of trade withTibet, and vice versa, and one of the trade routes was protected by our own escortforces in difficult terrain, in earlier days.

When China established itself under this new Government, we regularised theserelations. We withdrew the so-called "Mission" from Lhasa and appointed aConsul-General who is under the jurisdiction of our Ambassador in China. Theagreement we had with Tibet in 1954 is largely concerned with those tradematters - the introduction establishes the relation between China and ourselves.That is the position.

THERE HAVE BEEN TROUBLES BEFORE. The matter came up here in1950, and then it was adjourned because it was thought that a peacefulsettlement would be brought about. Then, more recently, there have beendisturbances in Tibet, for instance the revolt of the Khampas. They themselvesare not all in Tibet proper; their revolt began in China proper. They are mostlyChinese themselves. However, the Tibetan Khampas and other Tibetanssubsequently joined them, and a very considerable revolt appears to have taken

place.

As a result, the Dalai Lama himself and some 12,000 or 13,000 of his followerscame over to India. I think it would be right for us in this connection, whenconsidering the concern that parties and countries and peoples have in regard tohuman rights and humanitarian affairs, to point out to the Assembly that, whilewe are not a Buddhist country, we alone of all countries in the world had theresponsibility, which we willingly undertook, to give asylum to the Dalai Lama,as we had the right but not the obligation to do, and also to receive some 12,000or 13,000 refugees.

Therefore, no feeling that we are indifferent to what happens in our neighbouringcountry or to the conditions that I have mentioned can ever be held in regard to usin this connection. We still have those refugees in our land. And, although therehave been allegations in the past by the Chinese Government - not perhaps theChinese Government, but certainly by Chinese quarters - that India has promotedthese troubles, or that India has been a base for this, there has been no justificationwhatsoever for that sort of statement or allegation.

On the other hand, the Dalai Lama is entirely free in India to do whatever he likes.That is evident from the fact that this item has come up here. The Government ofIndia does not approve, does not support, the discussion of this item in the UnitedNations. But, in spite of that, we have done nothing to prevent it. Our view hasbeen that it is within the rights of a political refugee, to whom we have givenasylum, to exercise his own freedom, within limits, in his own way, and we havenot interfered with that at all. At the same time, we have said that we hope andexpect that there will be no undue embarrassments.

The developments in Tibet have been discussed times without number in India,and my Prime Minister has made the position of the Government very clear. Hehas said:

"On the one side there was a dynamic, rapidly moving society; on theother, a static unchanging society, fearful of what might be done to it inthe name of reforms. The distance between the two was great and thereappeared to be hardly any meeting point. Meanwhile, changes in someforms inevitably came to Tibet... Though physical barriers wereprogressively removed, mental and emotional barriers increased...

"When the news of these unhappy developments came to India, there wasimmediately a strong and widespread reaction. The Government did notbring about this reaction. Nor was this reaction essentially political. Itwas largely one of sympathy based on sentiment and humanitarianreasons, and also on a certain feeling of kinship with the Tibetan peopledeprived from long-established religious and cultural contacts. It was aninstinctive reaction."

Then he went to say, referring to the general criticism that had been made on theChinese side about our "interference":

"We have no desire whatever to interfere in Tibet; we have every desire tomaintain the friendship between India and China but at the same time wehave every sympathy for the people of Tibet and we are greatly distressedat their hapless plight. We hope still that the authorities of China in theirwisdom will not use their great strength against the Tibetans but will winthem to friendly co-operation..."

This was in the early part of the trouble. Then more and more refugees began tocome in. At the beginning of this problem, various countries - it is not mybusiness to mention their names - intimated to us that their attitude must depend,to a certain extent, upon India’s reactions to this business. You will find in thisAssembly that India and a large number of Asian countries have not chosen totake an active part in promoting and supporting any movement here. That is not,as has been suggested, because of our fear of anybody or because we are too nearChina and do not want to displease her. Of course, nobody wants to displease hisneighbours. But our action in this matter, our posture in this matter is dictated byconsiderations which are not of a selfish character. We recognise equally that theaction taken by Ireland and Malaya is dictated by motives which they regard asvery worthy and valid, and we respect them. But we expect other people tounderstand that, if we have taken the position in this matter that we have taken, itis not because of extraneous considerations of pressure but because we think thatthe welfare of the people concerned and their future depend to some extent uponthe restraint that can be exercised.

The Prime Minister of India has said:

"Now, where a society has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years, itmay have outlasted its utility, but the fact is that uprooting it is a terriblypainful process. It can be uprooted slowly, it can be changed even withrapidity, but with a measure of co-operation. But any kind of a forcibleuprooting of that must necessarily be painful, whether it is a good societyor a bad society. When we have to deal with such societies anywhere inthe world, which as a social group may be called primitive, it is not aneasy matter to deal with it. All these difficult things are happening. Theyshould have happened; they would have happened may be a little moreslowly but with a greater measure of co-operation, because such a changecan only take place effectively and with least harm to the fabric, to thosepeople concerned, if it is done by themselves. They may be helped byothers, may be advised by others, but it must be done by themselves."

He goes on to say that this applies to us all. He continued:

"The moment a good thing is done by bad means that good thing becomesa bad thing. It produces different reactions..."

As a result of this there are 12,000 refugees from Tibet who have crossed intoIndia through the North Eastern Frontier Agency, which is Indian territory, andabout 1,600 through Bhutan, through the Himalayan territory, and a few hundredsthrough Sikkim. These refugees are being cared for. But I should like to say, inorder to put the international position correctly, that we have disarmed theserefugees on the border. And where there have been any instances of arms notbeing surrendered we have not allowed these refugees to come into our country.That is international law in regard to all political asylum, to which we haveadhered.

All this is done on the basis of broad policy. I should like to quote again thePrime Minister.

"Our broad policy was governed by three factors: (1) preservation of thesecurity and integrity of India; (2) our desire to maintain friendly relationswith China; and (3) our deep sympathy for the people of Tibet. Thatpolicy we shall continue to follow, because we think that a correct policynot only for the present but even more so for the future. It would be atragedy if the two great countries of Asia, India and China, which havebeen peaceful neighbours for ages past, should develop feelings ofhostility against each other. We for our part will follow this policy, but wehope that China also will do likewise and that nothing will be said or donewhich endangers the friendly relations of the two countries... maintainingour dignity, maintaining our rights, maintaining our self-respect, and yetnot allowing ourselves to drift into wrong attitudes and hostile attitudes,and trying to help in removing or in solving such problems as they arise,we may help a little."

This is still our hope. That is one of the reasons we do not want accentuation offeelings or strong language to be used either way because, after all, the end to besought must be some settlement. These problems cannot be solved quickly. Thething one can do in the circumstances is to create an atmosphere which may bringthis about. This is our position.

Then the question arises as to whether the presence of the Dalai Lama and hisentourage in India does not create a difference in political relationships. I havealready indicated our position in this matter, and that we stand by the agreementof 1954. In regard to the 17-Point Agreement, to which reference has been madeby many representatives in this Assembly, it is the view of the Government thatthat Agreement still stands. It is quite true that some of its provisions have beenbroken but that unfortunately will be found to be the case in regard to manyinternational treaties. If certain conditions are broken, either party or others

concerned take whatever action is necessary or possible in regard to them.

Some time ago, on June 30, 1959, a statement was issued which suggested thatsome political changes were to be established, and then the Government of Indiasaid:

"The Government of India wants to make it clear that they do notrecognise any separate government of Tibet, and there is therefore noquestion of a Tibetan Government under the Dalai Lama functioning inIndia."

I have stated as far as I can both sides of this proposition.

THE MATTER COMES HERE EITHER AS A POLITICAL ISSUE or as ahumanitarian issue. We could argue the legalism of it, as I said, but we do notintend to do it. My Prime Minister informed Parliament that this matter can comeup before the United Nations only for two reasons. He said:

"One is violation of human rights and the other aggression. Now,violation of human rights applies to those who have accepted the Charterof the United Nations, in other words, those members of the UnitedNations who have accepted the Charter. Strictly speaking, you cannotapply the Charter to people who have not accepted the Charter, who havenot been allowed to come into the United Nations."

"Secondly, if you talk about aggression, aggression by one sovereignindependent State on another... Tibet has not been acknowledged as anindependent State for a considerable time, even long before this happened- much less after. Therefore, it is difficult to justify aggression."

Then, regarding the legal aspects, the Prime Minister went on to say:

"Then, I come to a certain practical aspect. And that is what good will beachieved" by discussion or resolution in the United Nations. "Suppose weget over the legal quibbles... It may lead to a debate in the GeneralAssembly or the Security Council, wherever it is taken up" - this was saidin September of this year - "a debate which will be an acrimonious debate,an angry debate, a debate which will be after the fashion of cold war.Having had the debate, what then will the promoters of that debate andthat motion do? Nothing more. They will return home. After havingbrought matters to a higher temperature, fever heat, they will go home.They have done their duty because they can do nothing else.

"Obviously, nobody is going to send an army to Tibet or China for thatwas not done in other cases. It is fantastic to think they will move in that

way in Tibet. Obviously not. So, all that will happen is an expression ofstrong opinion by some, other countries denying it and the matter beingraised to the level of cold war - brought into the domain of cold war - andprobably producing reactions on the Chinese Government which are moreadverse to Tibet and the Tibetan people than even now. So, the ultimateresult is no relief to the Tibetan people but something the reverse of it."

This is our position.

Just because a matter is a matter that contains features we do not like, we do nottherefore necessarily think this is either the forum or any remedy can be broughtabout here. We have no evidence in regard to some of these matters, nor is it ourbusiness to argue the contrary. All that we should like to say is what the PrimeMinister has said in some other place that so far as aggression and refugees areconcerned, these refugees came into India sometime in March or April 1959, andthey have not returned since. There may be some exaggerations, there would besome exaggerations, it may be otherwise. We are not prepared to vouch for iteither way.

THE PROBLEM, AS WE SEE IT AT PRESENT, IS THIS. The Dalai Lama is avery young man - I met him myself; he kindly came to see me before I came here.He is highly respected by his own people, at least by a great part of his ownpeople. There is, as I have outlined, a great degree of emotional concern in thismatter in India, and one would hope that his future, the future of his refugeepeople, still lies in their own homeland. We would not push them back, we wouldnot be inhospitable, we would not reverse the laws of political asylum in any way.But we would never depart from the belief that reconciliation is possible.

In this we may allow ourselves to feel somewhat encouraged in the sense that theDalai Lama, in spite of all the violent language used in controversy either here orin China, is still the Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee of the NationalPeople’s Council. If the Chinese thought that there was an end to all of thesethings, I personally would have believed that they would have brought atermination to that position. Neither I as an individual nor the Government ofIndia can or do wish to hold out any prospects or hopes or anything of that kind inthis matter. The fact that the Dalai Lama is still a young person with a great dealof vitality, that he is interested in the welfare of his own people who, apart fromthese 12,000 are in the trans-Himalayan region in Tibet and, what is more, theChinese Government may not have yet gone the whole way - all this may give ussome hope that, with the expression of opinion in the world, with the passage oftime, some reconciliation would come about and that this sorry chapter of historywould then be forgotten, and would be a past chapter.

We think that, however acute the problem, the path of reconciliation is theconstructive path. It is for those reasons that we shall not contribute to tightening

this deadlock, we shall not add to this by being parties to any acrimoniousdiscussion here.

There have been many arguments about whether this is a cold war debate orotherwise, about whether the motives were one thing or another. The issue is notwhether the Irish and Malayan delegations brought this subject up here in order topromote the cold war. To our mind, the issue certainly is not whether they wereasked by someone else to do it. The issue is, what are the consequences? Theseconsequences are before us in the proceedings of the last two days and in theproceedings before the General Committee. Much has been said which canneither be established nor refuted. Many theories have been brought forward.Out of twenty-five speakers, I think that twelve or more different views have beenexpressed on these matters. It has not thus led either to a clarification of theposition under the Charter or to the establishment of a solution to this problem.

In this problem our primary concern must be the Tibetan people, who have notfigured very much in these debates, and we therefore do not find ourselves in aposition to support the draft resolution that is before us, either as it stands as awhole or any part of it... We have examined the draft resolution very carefully,and we therefore take the only position we can take, that, in the interests ofreconciliation in the future, because it does not promote any constructive step atall, the draft resolution cannot have our support. We do not see a basis for it inthe sense that if it is a question of human rights we must deal with people herewho have subscribed to the Declaration91 because the Declaration definitely statesthat it is the States Parties whom it binds. Therefore, I have to state that this draftresolution cannot have our support. We will abstain on each paragraph if it is putto the vote in parts, and on the draft resolution as a whole.

Our abstention, however, will be in no sense - I repeat, in no sense - a lack ofconcern or a lack of feeling in regard to the Tibetan people or any reflection uponour relations with China. It merely arises from the posture and policy which Ihave placed before the Assembly...

In spite of all that has happened in Tibet, in spite of all that has happened in thecorridors of this Assembly and in the debating from either side, in spite of thetype of language sometimes used and the approaches, wrong or otherwiseprejudicial to a solution, it is the hope of my people and my Government that theplight of the Tibetan people will be resolved by the process of reconciliation andthat the incidents of the recent past will become part of past history. At thepresent moment, with the other incidents that have taken place on the Indianborder, it is not possible for me to say whether this may be either proximate orimmediate, but any warming up of these issues or any exacerbation of themcannot lead in any way to reconciliation. But at no time have we lost faith in thatsort of thing because, as I have said, outside the 12,000 people who are in India,

91 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assemblyon December 10, 1948

the vast bulk of the Tibetan people are still on Tibetan land. They live there andthey have their being there. I hope that the young Dalai Lama who has been theirleader, in whom a large number of the Tibetan people place a great faith and whohas attracted a great deal of sympathy from various parts of the world, will be ableto place his talents and services at the disposal of his people and return to them indignity and in peace. If any country, be it mine or anyone else’s, or if thePresident, can do anything in order to minister to that reconciliation, that wouldbe our role as part of the United Nations.

PART III

OTHER MATTERS

A. ATOMIC ENERGY

INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION IN DEVELOPING THE PEACEFULUSES OF ATOMIC ENERGY

[In December 1953, President Eisenhower of the United States, in an address tothe General Assembly, proposed the setting up of an international agency in orderto develop peaceful uses of atomic energy. After consultations with Australia,Belgium, Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom, the United Statesrequested in 1954 that the General Assembly include in its agenda an itementitled "International co-operation in developing the peaceful uses of atomicenergy."

On December 4, 1954, the Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution expressingthe hope that the agency would soon be established, and requesting the Secretary-General to organise an international conference on the peaceful uses of atomicenergy.

The International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy was heldin Geneva from 8 to 20 August 1955, with Dr. Homi J. Bhabha, Chairman ofthe Atomic Energy Commission of India, as President.

During discussion at the tenth session of the General Assembly in 1955, severalresolutions were proposed on the convening of further international conferencesand on the establishment of the proposed agency. India participated actively inthe discussions and, along with other States, submitted two resolutions. Afterdiscussion, the Assembly unanimously adopted, on December 3, 1955, resolution912(X) covering both matters. It decided inter alia that all States members of theUnited Nations and its specialised agencies would be invited to the conference toadopt the statue of the International Atomic Energy Agency.]

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, November 17,1954

(Summary)

Mr. Menon (India) stated that the reaction of his delegation to the plan presentedby President Eisenhower on December 8, 1953, had been made known very soonafter that speech had been delivered. Subsequently, on May 10, 1954, the PrimeMinister of India, speaking in the Indian Parliament, had welcomed PresidentEisenhower's approach to the question...

The problem of the peaceful uses of atomic energy was of great importance, and itwould create great changes in the economic and also, perhaps, political relationsof the world. It was therefore absolutely necessary that it should be consideredwith objectivity and without emotion. The lack of emotion on the part of theIndian delegation should not be construed as a lack of enthusiasm for theproposal. While welcoming the proposal, the Prime Minister of India had alreadystated that the use of atomic energy was far more important for a country likeIndia than it might be for other advanced countries.

The pattern of the current debate was that each delegation stated its position, itsachievements, its resources and its desire to join in the effort to evolve a schemefor the peaceful utilisation of atomic energy. With regard to the joint draftresolution, there was a general willingness to accept the intentions of the sponsorsand to wait to see how the details outlined in the draft resolution would bepresented in the course of the debate.

Mr. Menon stated that in India there was fortunately no resistance of a mental orinstitutional character to scientific research. The notion that there was nodifference between mass and energy which, from the point of view of actualreaction and approach, was perhaps revolutionary to the Western world, was notso to the Oriental mind. A child in India would speak of matter and energy as thesame. Therefore the educated strata of his country were almost predisposed toadopt that approach. Moreover, the tradition of scientific investigation in Indiawent back thousands of years. There had been a continuous spirit of scientificinquiry, the origin of which was lost in the remoteness of time. The system ofwriting numbers had been known to Indian civilisation many thousands of yearsbefore.

Mr. Menon enumerated the main contributions of ancient Indian scientists in thefield of mathematics. The Indian mathematicians had also been the first to use theletters of the alphabet to denote unknowns, which had contributed to the advanceof algebra. Mr. Menon then reviewed the contributions made by Indian scientistsin the realm of physics. He added that translations and interpretations of ancientIndian writings in Sanskrit showed that the Indian scientists in those times hadbeen familiar with the concept of motion, both atomic and molecular, asunderlying the physical phenomena of sound, light and heat.

Mr. Menon then traced the progress of Indian scientific thought until the time thatIndia came into contact with the industrial civilisation of the West. In 1784, theRoyal Asiatic Society of Bengal had been established, which had started aresurgence, and modern scientific methods had received an impetus in India. As aresult of that, a number of scientific institutions had been established andconsiderable advance had been made in scientific research in various fields.

The emergence of an independent India in 1947 had given further impetus to theestablishment of new institutions for carrying on research in the various fields of

science. The two most important of India's institutions were the Indian Instituteof Science at Bangalore and the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research atBombay. The Institute at Bangalore was associated with the name of SirChandrasekhara Venkata Raman, the discoverer of what was known as the Ramanray and the Raman effect. The revolutionary discovery in 1928 of the Ramanlines had been of the greatest importance for molecular research. Beside Raman,other Indian scientists, prominent among whom were Dr. Saha, Dr. Kothari, Dr.Bose, Sir Kariamanikkam Srinivasa Krishnan, and Dr. Bhabha, had also madeimportant contributions to scientific research in the atomic field.

In 1948, the Indian Parliament had passed the Atomic Energy Act for thedevelopment and control of atomic energy. As a result of the passage of that Act,an Atomic Energy Commission had been established in August 1948 under thechairmanship of Dr. Bhabha. The Commission was directly responsible to thePrime Minister of India. The functions of the Commission included thepromotion and control of research in nuclear sciences and the survey anddevelopment of the mineral and other resources of the country which might be ofuse in the production of atomic energy. The research programme of theCommission was being carried out at the Tata Institute and several otherinstitutions. Mr. Menon then quoted from a book by Mr. Gordon Dean,92 formerChairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, in which it was statedthat, among the nations in Asia, India had the largest and most advanced atomicenergy programme, that India had made considerable progress in recent years incosmic ray research, that it had the world's richest deposits of monazite, whichcontained thorium, and that, under the leadership of some very able scientists,India was making a determined effort to keep itself informed about nuclearresearch developments all over the world.

The Indian Government was fully aware that no great advance could be made inthe field of atomic research by having only a few well-known scientists, and ithad therefore established a number of well-provided and well-staffed laboratorieswhere research could be carried on by younger scientists. Similarly, most of theIndian universities were receiving grants from the Government or from publicinstitutions for the encouragement of nuclear research. As a result, there weretoday in Indian universities 96,000 students being trained in scientific study andresearch and 116,000 in technical projects.

Describing India's atomic energy resources, Mr. Menon stated that very bigdeposits of low-grade uranium ore had already been found in various parts of thecountry. In addition, there were monazite reserves estimated at over one milliontons, containing over 0.3 per cent uranium. Uranium-bearing belts had also beendiscovered in eastern and central India. To stimulate the mining of uranium byprivate concerns, the Atomic Energy Commission had offered to buy all stocks ofuranium ore. As a further incentive, rewards were offered for the discovery of

92 Dean, Gordon, Report on the atom; what you should know about the atomic energy program ofthe United States, Knopf, New York, 1953.

new deposits, and grants-in-aid were given for mine development. Thegovernment geologists also gave advice to private prospectors and samples of orebrought by them were analysed free of charge. The Indian Rare Earths Ltd. wasalso exploiting other material resources in that field. The Raw Material Divisionof the Atomic Energy Commission was also carrying out extensive survey anddrilling operations for atomic minerals.

A plant with a capacity of 3,000 tons of monazite per annum had been set up in1952 in southern India and another plant to process thorium and uranium tocommercial purity was also in an advanced stage of construction and would be inoperation in 1955.

The Indian Atomic Energy Commission laid great stress on the application of itswork to the population as a whole and to the development of applied science. Ithad added a biological and medical research department, which was working inclose co-operation with the Indian Cancer Research Centre. The application ofatomic energy to agriculture was also in progress.

India had made considerable progress in cosmic ray research, for which itsgeographical position was particularly favourable. A major development in thatfield had been the establishment of a laboratory at Gulmarg, in Kashmir, 9000feet above sea level; other research centres existed in different parts of thecountry. Cosmic ray research in India had received further impetus with thelaunching of a joint Indian-American programme of research, in October 1952, onthe nature and behaviour of cosmic rays in the thin air region nearly twenty milesabove the earth. The programme was sponsored by two American institutions, theNational Geographic Society and the Franklin Institute, and by the AligarhUniversity of India.

Turning to the plan initiated by President Eisenhower, Mr. Menon stated that hisGovernment saw no reason why the development of the industrial uses of atomicenergy should not take place irrespective of the question of banning atomicweapons. The banning of atomic weapons was an absolute necessity in itself, butshould not be confused with the other question.

Mr. Menon wished to deal next with the question of the relationship of rawmaterials to industrial expansion in the modern world. He drew attention to thefact that certain countries, like his own, possessed vast resources of raw materials,and emphasised that those countries must not be placed in the position where theysupplied their raw materials to the industrially advanced countries, receiving inreturn processed material, and even complete atomic reactors. The UnitedNations should not, directly or indirectly, find itself in a situation of assistingcolonial exploitation. It must therefore be emphasised that any country whichcontributed raw materials to the international pool must have the rightprogressively to contribute those materials in a more processed and finished form,and that no impediment should be put in the way of its technical and industrial

development.

On behalf of his Government, Mr. Menon declared that India had no objection tosupplying considerable quantities of uranium- or thorium-containing substances,provided it was clearly understood that India would deliver such supplies, withthe passage of time, in a more and more finished form. The ultimate criterionshould be self-sufficiency; that criterion should be accepted as a basic principle,although it did not in any way preclude exchange or co-operation with othercountries. The Indian delegation only wanted to make sure that in the atomic agethere should not be a repetition of the former relationship between themanufacturing country and the country which produced raw material, the latterremaining permanently a supplier of raw material, and no more.

Mr. Menon then declared that his country must have some assurance that thematerial it supplied would not even indirectly be used for manufacturing atomicweapons; as for the question of the direct use of such material for such purposes,that would be covered by bilateral agreements.

Referring to the joint draft resolution (A/C.1/L.105),93 Mr. Menon stated that hehad the assurances of its sponsors that it was not their desire to exclude any partof the world. As far as his country was concerned, it was in a position to make aproper contribution to the present task from the beginning. Mr. Menon wished topoint out that India possessed natural, scientific, technical and financial resourcesto develop atomic energy on its own, without any assistance from any foreigncountry; at the same time, its programme would, of course, be expedited throughco-operation with other nations...

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, October 25, 1955

(Summary)

Mr. Menon (India) emphasised that his delegation had entered the debate with thedesire that the Committee and the Assembly should reach a unanimous decision.That was still the fervent hope of his delegation...

Twenty-two months had been devoted to what might be called "preliminarytalks." Since the conclusion of the debate at the previous session, when theCommittee had agreed that the negotiations concerning the establishment of anInternational Atomic Energy Agency should proceed, and that suggestionsthereon should be extended to the United States Government, India had sent outsome communications in order to obtain all the information possible. Subsequentto the Indian communication of August 8, 1955, to the Secretary-General, a draft

93 The joint draft resolution was proposed by Australia, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, UnitedKingdom and the United States.

statute for the International Atomic Energy Agency had been circulated.

Although in the last ten years progress in atomic development had been made,particularly in destructive fields, nations and scientists had not forgotten its moreuseful value. Besides technical advance, there had also been some progress in theunderstanding of the relation between technical discoveries and social conditions.However, no one should think that debate on the problem of the peaceful uses ofatomic energy, or the establishment of the Agency, or even the large-scaledevelopment of such peaceful uses, constituted in themselves a solution to theproblem of preventing the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes. The twoproblems were separate, though related, and where they related, their relation wasof a rather ominous character. Although he had no desire to trespass on the fieldof disarmament at the present stage, he wanted to mention that fact because hethought it would be a great mistake to be guided by the escapist belief thatbuilding on one side solved the problem of destruction on the other.

He stressed that, following the pattern set by previous speakers, he wouldconsider the item under three separate headings and deal first with the generalquestion of the peaceful uses of atomic energy, then with the question of holdingscientific conferences, and thereafter with the question of establishing anInternational Atomic Energy Agency.

Turning to the first of those questions, he emphasised that his Government did notlook upon the question of the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposesfundamentally and primarily as a technical problem. It was necessary to bear inmind that the problem had vast social and economic significance. Hisdelegation's approach was based on the view that the world was at the dawn of anew era where social values, industrial techniques and social purposes faced agreat revolution. India recognised that any approach made to the problem couldnot be confined within national frontiers. That was true not only in the field ofdestruction, where the possession of destructive atomic weapons was ofconsequence to people who were far removed from them - indeed, it was probablymore ominously of concern to those who were far away from them.

The search for energy derived from the atom had been brought to the fore by twofactors. First of all, in order to raise the standard of living, it was necessary toconsume more energy. It had been stated by the President of the InternationalConference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy94 that, at the present rate ofconsumption, the available sources of energy would be used up in less than acentury. Secondly, the fact was that the people of the world had to learn from theoccurrence of a calamity the ways to turn that calamity to useful purposes. Sincethe dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and the events that followed, anurge had been created to find more and more methods of exploiting andharnessing atomic energy. He wished in that connection to stress that India'sposition in favour of the total prohibition of the use of atomic and other weapons

94 Dr. Homi J. Bhabha

of mass destruction remained unchanged.

In connection with the problems of the new era, it was useful to recall a few factsin connection with the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century. Mr. Menonmentioned in that respect the production of machine tools by the Westerncenturies, such as the United Kingdom; the division of the world into two camps -those who produced consumer goods and those who provided raw materials and amarket for those goods; changes in agriculture; the institution of forced labour andslavery; and the discovery of new land and the sharing of the unexplored parts ofthe world among the great Powers, who were the pioneers in the industrialrevolution. Those were historical facts which had a strong bearing on the attitudethat countries like India took in the approach to the present problem. Thoseexperiences should be remembered in order that humanity might be saved fromthe consequences of the atomic revolution in so far as its evil aspects wereconcerned, and might turn that revolution to more useful purposes.

In any arrangements made for the future, there must be, first of all, equitybetween nation and nation as well as between the social groups inside eachcountry. It was necessary for the proposed International Atomic Energy Agencyto place emphasis on the protection of those who worked with atomic energy, inview of the grave consequences involved and the ominous burden they undertook.

Turning to the development of atomic resources in India, Mr. Menon stressed thathis Government's pursuit of knowledge about atomic energy would be restrictedto its peaceful uses. In a short survey he described the political, administrativeand scientific establishments in the atomic field in India, and gave detailsregarding the resources of atomic raw material, their extraction and processing,the training of scientists, the creation of scientific laboratories, and the reactorprogramme in which India was being assisted by Canada and the United Stateswhich provided it, respectively, with an NRX reactor and heavy water. India alsoco-operated in that field with Norway, Sweden and certain other countries. Hiscountry was thus making its contribution to the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Itwas the policy of his Government that the facilities available in India should beopen to those other States which were willing and able to make use of them.

Speaking on the International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy,held at Geneva, he stated that his Government wished to express its appreciationfor the services rendered by the Secretary-General, the Advisory Committee, andthe Secretary-General and the Assistant Secretary-General of the Conference, aswell as the members of the Secretariat, all of whom had contributed to its success.His country had been happy to provide the services of Mr. Bhabha as President ofthe Conference. Mr. Menon also recalled the contribution made to theConference in various fields by young Indian scientists. Apart from all itsmaterial achievements and the exchange of knowledge which had taken place, theConference had not only been a great exercise in international co-operation, buthad also furthered the great idea of an open world. In lifting the veil of secrecy

from atomic research, a new channel of international co-operation had beenopened. Another great achievement of the Conference had been the momentum ithad itself generated for the continuation of its work. The Conference had alsobeen characterised by a spirit of recognition and generosity; if some of that spiritcould be brought into the field of political discussion, considerable progresswould be made. Finally, another great achievement of the Conference had beento make potent the desire for the establishment of the Agency, which hisGovernment supported with enthusiasm.

With regard to the draft statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he didnot wish to go into detail at the present stage. His Government hadcommunicated its views in that respect to the United States Government... thedraft resolution submitted by India and five other Governments contained someideas that were basic, but that did not mean that they were incompatible withother basic ideas...

In going through a great revolution, India and countries like it did not wish to findthemselves merely hewers of wood and drawers of water. India would not be infavour of an economy in which there were "haves" and "have-nots," which wasthe foundation of international conflict and war. His country would not be a partyto any organisation that, either by implication or by its economic consequences,would confine large areas of the world which were the producers of raw materialsand were at present backward in their economic development, to that scale of theeconomic ladder. India was in favour of a scheme of international co-operation.So long as there were under-developed countries that could not keep pace withother countries, as their standards of living were lower, they became the weak linkin the chain of international progress.

Mr. Menon recalled the statement made by the representative of the UnitedKingdom at the 758th meeting of the Committee to the effect that the UnitedKingdom had, for many years, as a matter of international co-operation providedinternational services in banking, insurance, and shipping, but that it was nowmoving towards a new era of international atomic co-operation. Mr. Menon saidthat his country favoured international co-operation in atomic matters, but thatIndia and countries like it were not moving into a period in which a monopoly onshipping, banking, insurance, or atomic energy was going to be held by anycountry. It was his delegation's desire to see that the circumstances which camein the wake of the industrial revolution and some of the unhappy conditions whichfollowed were not repeated. That was why his delegation, in putting forward itsproposals, wished to give some guidance to the General Assembly as to the natureof the relations which should exist between the United Nations and the Agency.The United Nations should see that the preparatory work in that connection wasspread out in such a way that, even at the formative stage, the contributions ofdifferent parts of the world would come into the Agency. India would like to seethe International Atomic Energy Agency established in such a way that nocountry could be excluded. Mr. Menon said that what he was asking for was an

"open forum." India did not look upon compromise as a sign of weakness; at thesame time, however, it had no desire to seek unanimity when it did not meanconsensus of minds.

In conclusion, he pledged that his delegation and Government would endeavour toassist in reaching unanimous agreement on a draft resolution which would enablethe world conference to meet and discuss a draft statute which would commandwide acceptance in the world. That conference should be a deliberative assembly.He had no doubt that in a few days it could be announced to the world that thenations, in spite of their differences, were prepared to venture on that greatexperiment in a spirit of harmony and, if not necessarily in agreement in everydetail, with a commonness of objective in order that humanity might be the betterserved.

EFFECTS OF ATOMIC RADIATION

Statement in the First Committee of the General Assembly, October 31, 1955

[In 1955, the United States proposed, for the agenda of the General Assembly, anitem entitled "Co-ordination of information relating to the effects of radiationupon human health and safety." India proposed an item entitled "Disseminationof information on the effects of atomic radiation and on the effects ofexperimental explosions of thermonuclear bombs." The two items wereconsidered together.]

(Summary)

Mr. Menon (India) stated that his delegation had insisted on raising the questionof the effects of atomic radiation in its entirety, and not solely the effects of suchradiation on human beings, first, because that specific aspect of the question waslittle known and, secondly, because man was conditioned by his environment.The question of the co-ordination of information had been dealt with at the 773rdmeeting by the United States representative; in recent months, there had beenconsultation between the two delegations which gave cause to hope that theymight be able, jointly, to present certain conclusions.

For its part, India considered it essential to approach the problem from the pointof view that the difference between the atomic age and the age which hadpreceded it was as great as the difference between the latter age and pastoralcivilisations. India's concern in the matter was not new; on April 2, 1954, thePrime Minister of India had asked that full publicity should be given to the known

or probable effects of atomic radiation, and had stressed the risks incurred bythose who sailed what had once been the open ocean. Then, on April 8, theIndian Government had communicated to the Secretary-General certain proposalsfor circulation to the Disarmament Commission. Finally, in July, the Indiandelegation had raised the matter again in the Trusteeship Council and hademphasised the serious consequences of certain explosions and their effects, at adistance of more than 175 miles, on 28 Americans and 236 inhabitants of theMarshall Islands.

In his statement at the 700th meeting, he recalled, he had referred to a statementby Dr. Adrian on the possible effects of atomic radiation.

At the Asian-African Conference at Bandung, the Prime Minister of India hadsuggested the establishment of a chain of stations to keep a continuous watch onradio-activity, and the Conference had endorsed that proposal.

Thus, India was approaching the problem not from the point of view of partisanagitation, but from the point of view of making constructive contributions. It had,for example, declared its readiness to place at the disposal of the internationalcommunity the facilities for observation which it possessed and which were by nomeans negligible. The basic consideration, in that matter, was not to recogniseany political or social barrier, and even, if it proved feasible, to go so far as toobserve other planets.

Mr. Menon paid a tribute to the positions taken by Lord Russell and the lateProfessor Einstein, who had called for measures to evaluate the intensity ofatomic radiation, and to the efforts made in the United States, particularly by theNational Academy of Sciences and the Federation of American Scientists. TheFederation had expressed the hope that the United Nations might participate bysetting up a monitoring service.

Scientific opinion on the problem was divided: while some felt that the effects ofatomic radiation, although harmful, could be tolerated, others considered thatbeyond a certain limit there would be serious consequences.

It would be a great mistake to believe that the Indian delegation was concernedonly with the effects of nuclear explosions; the peaceful use of atomic energy alsocreated problems, and, while it was not being suggested, for example, that radio-active isotopes should no longer be used, the consequences of their use inmedicine or agriculture should be investigated. Besides, the problem was not newif the difficulties caused by X-ray therapy were considered.

The basic problem was to determine whether the effects of atomic radiation couldbe inherited; if so, the whole human race would be affected. Consequently,contamination from radiation should be prevented in the same way as steps hadbeen taken the world over to pasteurise milk. Already, an American scientist had

mentioned the possibility that radiation might be a cause of cancer.

In other words, all that had to be established for the present was a prima faciecase to show that radiation might have far-reaching consequences. In the days ofthe industrial revolution, workers had had to be protected against certainoccupational diseases. Similarly, with the use of radio-active elements, measuresshould be taken, not to halt progress, but to make provision against harmfulconsequences resulting, not only from bombs, but from the medical, agriculturalor industrial use of atomic energy. It was no secret that, at the time certainexplosions had taken place, scientists themselves had admitted that they hadmiscalculated the consequences. Finally, the world was in the grip of a psychosiswhich caused people to believe that the mildest storm was an effect of nuclearexplosions, and that uneasiness, based as it was on ignorance, also producedundesirable effects which should be dispelled.

The problem of atomic wastes should also be studied by any organisation to be setup by the United Nations. Like oil wastes and smoke, atomic wastes presentedproblems which should not be underestimated, as had been done in the past whenthere were only a very few factory smokestacks. The proposal to create "atomicgraveyards," where wastes collected in containers would be buried, might beacceptable in a world which had renounced war, but might prove dangerous if theburial-grounds were ever subjected to aerial attack. As to the suggestion that thewastes should be emptied into the ocean, it should be borne in mind that aconsiderable proportion of the world's inhabitants made their living from the seasand were entitled to expect respect for the freedom of the seas which, as the PrimeMinister of India had said, had already been imperilled by atomic experiments.

If radio-activity were communicable to another generation, there was a danger ofa chain reaction being set up. The United States representative had, it was true,pointed out that there was already radio-activity in the human system. But therewas a limit to everything. Man was already subjected to atmospheric pressure, forinstance, but that did not mean that the pressure could be increased with impunity.

Estimates of the level at which radio-activity could influence heredity might,understandably, differ. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that explosionsbrought in their wake not only radio-active matter, but substances surface-coveredby radio-active matter. And such radio-active elements circled the earththreatening all countries indiscriminately. Some believed that exploding thebombs under the sea would solve the problem; but in that case the sea might alsobecome radio-active.

Quoting the remarks made at the International Conference on the Peaceful Uses ofAtomic Energy by Mr. Hermann Mueller, of the University of Indiana, on thequestion of chromosome aberrations and, the more important point, mutations, hesaid, with reference to the effects of the dropping of the atomic bomb onHiroshima, that it was not merely persons actually exposed to the radiation, but

their children's children who might show induced mutations as a result. In anycase, from the standpoint, not merely of nuclear explosions, but also of thepeaceful uses of atomic energy, the question was quite as worthy of study as, say,the problem of deforestation in India. If it were ignored, the benefits of atomicenergy would be outweighed by its disastrous genetic repercussions.

There was, admittedly, a more or less official school of thought in the UnitedStates and the United Kingdom which held that what was now being done was notharmful - and he, for one, was far from wishing to imply that such scientists wereinfluenced by political considerations. Sir John Cockcroft, for example, while notminimising the problem, had stated before the United Kingdom Parliament thatthe present effects of nuclear explosions were negligible. Other, equallyreputable, scientists, however, considered the atomic radiation to be ten timesmore intense. Sir John Cockcroft, in any case, acknowledged the need for long-term genetic studies in that connection. Finally, common sense suggested thatpeoples living in flimsy houses, as in India for instance, would be more exposedto radiation than others. According to the United States Atomic EnergyCommission, nuclear weapons tests had made the waters of the Pacific north ofthe Equator ten times as radio-active as before.

In one United States publication it had been stated that, if atomic radiationcontinued to increase, about a third of the children born in the United States aloneeach year would carry undesirable characteristics. Radiation could not, therefore,be alleged to constitute no danger to the individual and the species. The radiationincrease due to the present tests was capable of producing one deleteriousmutation per 50,000 conceptions, or about 78 mutated germ cells a year amongchildren born in the United States.

Mr. Libby, of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, had stated that themaximum tolerance exposure for workers in the Commission's plants was 15,000times as great as the radiation to which the rest of the population was normallyexposed, and that such concentrated radiation on a selected group would not haveany immediate repercussion. Even if that were so, the fact remained that aproblem would arise, not immediately, but in the long run.

There was, hence, every justification for bringing the problem before theCommittee. The Indian delegation had, therefore, proposed placing on theAssembly's agenda the question of dissemination of information on the effects ofatomic radiation and on the effects of experimental explosions of thermonuclearbombs... It was stated in the explanatory memorandum submitted by India(A/2949/Add. 1) that the use of radio-active materials had presented to the worlda powerful new tool but that the use of those materials was attended by serioushazards to the persons working with them. It was, therefore, essential that thedata about the biological and other effects of radiation should be studied withscientific objectivity and thoroughness.

There was a divergence of opinion among scientists on the long-termconsequences of detonating nuclear and thermo-nuclear bombs for experimentalpurposes, in particular in regard to the possible genetic effects. It was accordinglyessential to set up immediately an international unit which would collect and co-ordinate data on the immediate and long-term consequences of atomic radiation,as well as on the known effects of experimental explosions of hydrogen or atomicbombs, and bring that information to the knowledge of the world.

In a word, there was a prima facie case for inquiry. For the moment it was aquestion not of creating a doctrine or bolstering up a particular thesis, but simplyof seeking the truth and making it known. Whatever procedure were adopted, themain task was to set up a body which would enable the Secretary-General to fulfilhis mission.

The evaluation of data and the conclusions must be objective and international incharacter, even though the material might come from national or even privatesources. The conclusions should, furthermore, be brought to the attention ofpublic opinion through the medium of the General Assembly. Finally, theprinciple of universality must be strictly observed in applying the conclusions.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Statement in the Second Committee of the General Assembly, November 6,195995

(Summary)

Mr. Menon (India) said that he might depart somewhat from the agenda item -the economic development of under-developed countries - but would endeavourto consider it in the context of the international political situation. The presenttendency towards a relaxation of tension associated with the efforts to deal withthe basic issues of disarmament would have social and economic, as well aspolitical consequences.

Discussion had long centred on the economic causes and consequences of war,but now the basic challenge confronting mankind appeared to be the balancedexpansion of the world economy. It involved not only balanced economic growthwithin nations, difficult to achieve as that aim was in itself, but, even more,balanced economic growth among nations, and would thus affect the relationsamong all nations. It would therefore be a mistake to suppose that the mainproblem was the economic development of under-developed countries, for theworld did not consist only of under-developed countries, and the latter could nottransform their economies solely by means of the help or charity of othercountries. Even when the under-developed countries succeeded in becomingconsumers of many manufactured goods produced by other countries, theireconomic situation would still remain much the same and the same problemswould confront them with equal urgency. Consequently all countries, developedand undeveloped alike, must deal with the world problem of balanced economicexpansion.

Fortunately it appeared that elemental forces or perhaps destiny were now urgingmankind towards closer co-operation, as the Prime Minister of India had pointedout. The time was past when each country could attempt to fend for itself in theeconomic field, when countries had been free to destroy goods in order tomaintain price levels or to prevent other countries from producing certain goods.The spread of democracy, in other words the influence of the people and of publicopinion in every country, made it impossible for Governments to resort to suchmethods. The policy of every country, whatever its economic and social system,must now be based not on considerations of national power, but on due regard forgeneral prosperity and plenty.

Recent statements of world leaders had shown that they had understood thatrequirement. Mr. Eisenhower had said that peoples of the world were no longer

95 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Fourteenth Session, Second Committee,pages 171-72

prepared to resign themselves to poverty, disease and oppression, that the problemof the under-developed countries was more important to Western civilisation thanthe problem of the conflict between the West and the Communist world, and thatall the more developed countries should work together in helping the lessfortunate nations. Mr. Khrushchev, for his part, had proposed a programme ofgeneral and complete disarmament that would make it possible to devoteenormous sums of money to constructive activities and to aid for the under-developed countries; he had stated that even a small part of the funds that thegreat Powers spent on arms would make it possible to begin to change the face ofAsia, Africa and Latin America.

There was a paradoxical situation in the present world; although in one sense itwas shrinking in another it might be said to be expanding, since millions of menwho had been mere chattels were now growing into a full awareness of life andthe discovery of new resources and technological progress were enlarging thefrontiers of the world. Mankind's paramount task was now to plan for plenty,in order to meet the needs and aspirations of the world population of 5,600million that would be reached by the end of the century.

THE WORLD POPULATION HAD STEADILY INCREASED ever since thebeginning of the Christian era, as a result of the change in the means ofproduction and in patterns of trade, and neither birth control nor any other methodwould halt the population expansion now taking place, which was not confined tothe under-developed countries. Far from taking a pessimistic view and believingthat man had reached the limit of what could be done to increase food production,he considered that the advances of science and modern technology would make itpossible to prevent any food shortage. Even at the present time mankind wasproducing more than it would consume. Two-thirds of the food produced waseaten by the animal population; that included creatures that were harmful oruseless, but they could be wiped out only by international planning, as had beendemonstrated in the case of locust control. Furthermore, some countries obtaineda higher yield per acre, because they had reached a more advanced stage oftechnological development.

As a result of the spread of scientific knowledge and modern techniques, mankindwould soon be able to change methods of cultivation everywhere, to make moreuse of fertilisers and even of isotopes to fertilise land that was now unproductive,to undertake the essential task of reforestation, perhaps one day to irrigate deserts,and remove the salts from sea water, thus providing additional water resources. Acombination of technological and meteorological knowledge would make itpossible to control the weather, and to obtain beneficial rainfall when and whererequired, always provided that planning was done at the international level.

From the time when man discovered that energy and matter were one, and thatevery gramme of matter contained 25 million kilowatt-hours of energy, there was

no further possibility of any shortage of power, and consequently of any shortageof food or other supplies, since once mankind had learned how to tap the energythat lay hidden in matter, he would have access to infinitely greater worldresources than at present. Formerly States had attempted to deal with populationexpansion by extending their living space through immigration and conquest; nowwhat was needed was more power, instead of more space. Nuclear fusion wouldsoon make it possible to use resources hitherto lying idle, such as the tar oil burieddeep in the soil of Canada that required underground explosions for itsexploitation. The energy in the heart of volcanoes, and in the sea, the wind andthe sun, could all the harnessed in the service of mankind. In view of all thosepotentialities, it became evident that the most valuable and sorely needed ofresources was a supply of technicians; the training of technicians was the mosturgent need of the present age and one of the conditions of mankind's survival.Consequently the advancement of technical studies should also be the subject ofserious planning throughout the world.

It was clear, however, that mankind would be unable to use all those sources ofpower or to exploit all the earth's resources if the present disputes and imbalancescontinued. The most serious imbalance appeared to be that resulting from theenormous disparity between levels of living in the more advanced and the under-developed countries. Mr. Black, the President of the International Bank forReconstruction and Development, had said that the resulting tension mightbecome serious enough to overshadow the problem of the cold war. He had saidthat the time had gone when money could be the sinews of diplomacy and themeans of winning friends and allies... The development of the under-developedcountries was an objective of vital importance in itself, and it was worth whilemaking unceasing efforts to achieve it regardless of the ups and downs of theworld political situation or the fluctuations of international trade.

Economic aid and trade alone would not suffice to solve the problems of theunder-developed countries and enable them to raise their levels of living; theymust also be able to industrialise. For example, it was desirable in order to meetthe needs of mankind that all countries should produce as much steel, inproportion, as the United States of America. But it was obvious that it would benecessary to plan the world economy so as to prevent any conflict, between themore advanced countries and the currently less developed countries which wouldeventually become industrialised, over the raw materials that all would need.Increasing industrialisation throughout the world and automation would createfurther problems, in regard, for example, to full employment and the use ofleisure, and steps should be taken now to find solutions.

But in order to ensure peace, on which the progress of mankind depended, it wasalso necessary to make an immediate attack on all the causes of instability andtension, to improve the terms of trade of the under-developed countries, toeliminate the barriers to the international exchange of goods and ideas, to producewith a view to general prosperity rather than in terms of existing patterns of

production and to strive to increase per caput incomes in the poorest countries.In practice all those problems would have to be tackled one by one.

In the meantime... he proposed that the Second Committee should undertake astudy to determine how the world's resources could be utilised to free mankindfrom want. Wisdom demanded that mankind should endeavour to plan for futuregenerations. Mankind could survive, achieve its aspirations and at last live in aworld of plenty, provided that it learned how to use the discoveries of science forconstructive purposes. It was for the Second Committee to begin to guide men'sactivities towards that promising goal.

C. UNITED NATIONS

AMENDMENT OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS:EXPANSION OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL


[In 1956, the General Assembly considered, at the request of Latin AmericanStates and Spain, the question of amending the United Nations Charter toincrease the membership of the Security Council and other organs of theUnited Nations in view of the increase in the membership of the Organisation.They presented a draft resolution to increase the membership of the SecurityCouncil from 11 to 13, and to allocate the eight non-permanent seats asfollows: Latin America, 2; Asia and Africa, 2; Western and Southern Europe,2; Eastern Europe, 1; Commonwealth, 1.

In this speech, Mr. Menon commented on the proposal and suggested furtherstudy of the matter.

No action was taken at that session of the General Assembly. Agreement on theexpansion of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council wasreached several years later. Amendments to the Charter were approved by theGeneral Assembly in 1963 and came into force in 1965.]

...The Security Council came into existence as a result of the decisions taken inSan Francisco in 1945 on the basis of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals; and thoseproposals provided for the present five permanent members, as well as for sixothers. Later, in London, there was what is called London agreement which is notin writing with regard to the allocation of these non-permanent seats to differentgeographical areas of the world...

My delegation wishes to draw the attention of the Assembly to the fact that, whenthe United Nations was established, large numbers of States of the world wereless concerned with the problems with which we are faced today.

There have emerged in the world new countries and, what is more, Asia andAfrica have acquired new significance. At the time the United Nations wasfounded, there were only two Asian countries which were members of it, namely,China and the Philippines. India was also one of the members that assisted in thefounding of the United Nations, but then it was not independent at the time. It


was represented by the then Government of India, and its representation camethrough what is called the Commonwealth group. Therefore, even taking Indiainto account, there were only three Asian countries. Instead of three Asiancountries, today from Asia and Africa we have here seventeen new entrants andprobably somewhere around twenty-seven countries belonging to theunrepresented area.

Now, looking at the United Nations as a whole, we find that certain areas of theworld are totally neglected, as in the case of Africa, or very much under-represented, as in the case of the whole area of Asia and Africa. Naturally, whencertain areas are under-represented, it means, in relation to that position, thatcertain other areas are over-represented.

The considerations governing the composition of the Security Council were in theminds of the framers of the Charter, for when this question of conferring powerson the Security Council was discussed at San Francisco, the Assembly agreed thatthe Security Council should have wide powers; and one of the reasons adducedwas that the non-permanent members were elected by the Assembly andrepresented the Assembly as a whole. In other words, in the composition of theSecurity Council, the six non-permanent members were assumed to represent theremainder of the membership of the Assembly, that is, the world as the UnitedNations then knew it. This of course casts upon us the responsibility of takinginto account these considerations.

It is well known that when a country is elected to the Security Council, it does notalways, and certainly not necessarily, represent the area. There are very well-known instances where the contrary is the case. It is doubtful whether we couldtotally remedy it, having regard to the sovereign character of our governments andthe necessity for every country casting its vote after consultation with or inaccordance with the wishes of its government. It is, of course, to be argued thatthe governments themselves would have to take into account the position that, inview of the intent of this article, and according to the San Francisco discussionsand the London agreement, their views should be representative not merely ofthemselves but of certain groups...

MY DELEGATION WISHES TO PLACE BEFORE THE GENERALASSEMBLY not all, but a number of considerations that should go into thecomposition of the Security Council and its strength.

A great many references have been made to geographical representation. Fromreading Article 23, it is quite plain that geographical representation is not the onlyfactor; but just because it is not the only factor, it cannot be dismissed as merely afactor. It is a very important factor, since the Security Council is concerned withinternational peace and security, in which geography plays such an important part,and large parts of the world cannot be left unrepresented in this way.

The article also takes into account the contributions made by members to themaintenance of peace and security. That contribution, in the realistic terms of theworld as it is, is not to be assessed merely by the positive contributions whichthey will make, but also by how much world peace and security will beendangered if their co-operation is not forthcoming.

It is unsafe to argue that because members of the Security Council, or certainStates, have not contributed recently - or might have done the reverse - for thatreason they have to be kept out. In that case we would have a very tragic situationat the present time, with certain permanent members of the Security Council notbeing available.

Therefore it is not merely a question whether they make a positive contribution; itis the weight, the economic, the military, the political and geographical weight,that comes into the position of a country in relation to the rest of the world thathas to be taken into account. We take all these considerations into account whenwe invite members to make financial contributions. The financial contributionsare judged on capacity to pay, on population, on importance - all kinds ofconsiderations go into it. And we have the countries charged with respectivepercentages of our total amount.

In this draft resolution (A/3446), it is stated that new members have come into theOrganisation and that the Security Council should be enlarged by two members.As I said a while ago, when the Security Council was established, there were 50members of the United Nations. Now there are 79 members. If 11 wasconsidered sufficient for 50 members, it appears that the addition of two certainlyis not a considerable one; it is doubtful whether it is proportionate.

When the League of Nations was founded, it had 42 members. Its strength variedfrom time to time, because some new members joined and others were expelled orleft the League; but its strength varied from 42 to 58 members. And the strengthof the League Council varied from 10 to 14 members. Therefore, whether wetake the proportionate strength and compare it to the strength of the members ofthis Assembly in terms of the history of the United Nations, or in terms of thehistory of the League of Nations, the present Security Council is much too smallfor this purpose.

It is quite true that at San Francisco, as well as at other places where there wasdiscussion, it was pointed out that the size of the Security Council should not besuch as to prevent the urgent dispatch of business. With very great respect, Isubmit that the lack of urgency in the dispatch of business has not come about somuch from the size of the Security Council as from the general nature of politicalconflict in the world and the irreconcilability of points of view, and perhaps fromcertain procedural arrangements. So we should not lay too much stress upon therelation of size to expedition. Of course, there is a point that is reached when size

becomes a very important factor.

I should like next to refer to the suggestion in the draft resolution with regard tothe new members. The implication obviously is to the new entrants, and when theaddition of two members is suggested, this draft resolution does not stand merelyby the words that are on paper. So much conversation has gone on, so muchdiscussion has taken place, and it is common knowledge that the idea is that thereshould be one Asian member added - there is no Asian representation now; that isto say, if Asia is regarded as strictly excluding the Middle East and restricted toeast, south-east and northern Asia. But, of course, if the Middle East was to beincluded in the geographical definition of Asia, then it would become necessary toinclude Eastern Europe in the definition of Europe. It would also be necessary toinclude Latin America in the definition of America.

But, out of the 20 new members, 11 have come from these areas - theunrepresented areas. Therefore, if there is an enlargement, the whole of thisenlargement has to go to that area. On this basis, the purpose of the enlargementis to make the Security Council more representative, reflecting more themembership of the General Assembly. And we say that the Security Council, asat present constituted, is very ill-balanced, and that the addition of these twomembers on this basis, instead of correcting that imbalance, will accentuate it.The fact that you add one and one equally at the present time does not offset thefact that there is already a preponderating imbalance existing, and also that theequal seats that are being allocated represent two regions of unequal importance.That is to say, there are more members from Asia and Africa which should be therecipients of this.

There are other considerations also which should be taken into account. Mydelegation would be the last to argue that we could have political influence in thisplace, or voting power in this place, or anything else, merely or evenpreponderatingly on the basis of population. That would be a very fallaciousargument, and it would vitiate the foundation of the United Nations, which is thatof sovereign equal States. But when we are considering questions of security,when we are considering the functions of the Security Council, just as geographycannot be brushed away, so a large weight of population cannot be brushed away.And if we look at the world as it is, 1,304 million people lived in Asia in 1951 outof a total world population of about 2,300 million.

Whatever amendment is brought in is not only for this year and, irrespective of allthe votes that can be rallied, no power in the world, if the United Nations is tosurvive, can keep the real Government of China out of this place for a very longtime - I doubt if it can keep it out even for a short time. Therefore, for the presentpurpose, let us include China as being represented - the representation is notnecessarily correct, but our views are well known in this matter. Even then, thereis one Asian country - or two, including the Middle Eastern countries,representing 14 Member States in Asia and 10 Member States in the Middle

East...

Now, we should like to compare this with other regions. There is Africa, with apopulation of 200 million, and from which there are today four members in theUnited Nations. It is quite true that the Union of South Africa could possiblycome in as a member of the Security Council, through the Commonwealth group,but I am afraid that the masses of the African population would not regardrepresentation of them by the Union as the representation of Africa. Add to thatwhat can happen in the next four or five years. There is the Federation ofRhodesia, there is the new State of Ghana which will come about in March 1957,there is Nigeria, there are the countries of East Africa and, irrespective of thedesires of the administrators and irrespective of the difficulties, there is Algeria.Now all these countries would become members of the United Nations within avery short period of time, so that there is a large and increasing number ofconstituents in Africa, and their representation is nil. Egypt, whichgeographically is in Africa, comes within the Middle Eastern franchise. That isthe position in Africa.

Now let us take Western Europe. Western Europe today has three seats: theUnited Kingdom, France and one non-permanent seat. It is not sufficient, in fact,it is not correct, in this context to argue that the draft resolution refers only to thenon-permanent seats. We are referring to increasing the strength of the SecurityCouncil, and therefore the permanent and non-permanent seats come intoquestion. There are three seats for 161 million people: that is, one for 53,600,000people. We would be the last people in the world to minimise the contributionmade by Western Europe to civilisation during the last 2,000 years and to materialcivilisation in the last 500 years, but I think it would be very difficult for us toadopt the argument of the nineteenth century that one European is equal to tenothers. That is not an argument that should be promoted in this Organisation.

Now, if you add one more seat to this representation, that would make four seatsfor 161 million people, but let us look at it the other way, if you like. Let usconsider that the permanent seats are taken out of this calculation; then therewould be one seat for 77 million people in Western Europe as at present, or, if thenew suggestions are carried through, there would be two seats for 77 millionpeople in Western Europe, or 12 countries. That is to say, one seat for sixcountries, which includes large and small.

I have with me a table of members elected to the Security Council, and it is ofsome significance to note that it is only from Western Europe that a country hasbeen able to occupy a non-permanent seat twice. The Netherlands was electedtwice, Belgium was elected twice. That is to say, there are more seats there,comparatively speaking, than people to contest them, otherwise no country wouldbe elected twice, where in every other part of the world the difficulty is to make itgo around once.

Therefore there is this very considerable imbalance, and any change that is mademust have for its prime consideration that this imbalance must be corrected.While no mathematical distribution is possible, the Security Council must reflectthe conditions of the world - as it is.

Asia and Africa, politically and economically, and from the point of view ofsecurity and peace, have become tremendously important in the last ten years,and, as recent experience has shown, unless these areas and their views are takeninto account in our deliberations, the peace of the world will not be as secure as itotherwise might be...

There are 319 million people, including the nearly 200 million in the SovietUnion, for whom there are two seats provided. On the continent of America,there are 348 million people and there are three seats, and four when Canada heldthe seat of the Commonwealth. So, from the picture I have presented to you, youwill see that the representation on the Security Council is very disproportionate...

If India were, for example, to seek election through a group of Asian countries,then we would be here, under present calculations, once in 26 years.Furthermore, in view of the political changes taking place, in three years` timeIndia would be here once in 36 years. We are, of course, hopeful that the UnitedNations will last much longer than that, but still for any country 26 years is quite along time.

Pakistan, our neighbour, with 70 million people and a very strategic position - thatcountry would be here under the same conditions. Now we are elected from theCommonwealth group, we will be here once in 14 years, next year it would beonce in 16 years, and in the following period once in 24 years.

I submit that this does not represent the state of the world. It is not sufficient tosay that to go from 11 to 13 is a very considerable advance in correcting thisposition. First of all, as I say, there is the question of imbalance - disproportion.When you look, not only into the geographical conditions, but into the politicalalignments, it becomes even more disproportionate, because the Security Councildoes not function in the way it should function.

My delegation therefore regards this problem as one which requires very carefulconsideration because, once it is amended this year, we cannot come back andamend it next year. The amendment must, therefore, take into account all thesefactors. We would not be agreeable to any amendment which provided one of thenew seats for Asia and the other for Europe, in fact providing one new seat forItaly, Spain and Portugal together. That would not be a correct representation.

We cannot sell to our people the idea that it takes twenty other nations to make upfor one European nation, which was the theory in days gone by. It is verydifficult to sell that today and we have no desire to sell it - so that is that.

THEREFORE, TO SUM UP OUR POSITION, we think that any suchamendment should take into account geographical distribution as one of thefactors...

Secondly, we think any changes must correct the present imbalance and maintainthe proper balance of populations, not necessarily mathematically, but take thisfactor into account. I want to be clear: countries with small populations are asimportant to the United Nations as the very big countries, but we are in thisparticular matter, where the maintenance of international peace and security isconcerned, taking into account the weight in terms of the peoples as one factor.

Thirdly, it is necessary that countries which, by and large, can be said to be ableto express the views or the sentiments of groups of countries, or through whichthose sentiments can be channelled - should be represented on the SecurityCouncil, and that is why I told you that, if a large country could sit but once in 26years, the Security Council would be rather out of touch with its constituents.And that is why, when an important problem arises, it shifts from the SecurityCouncil either to diplomatic discussions outside, or to the General Assembly.And since the General Assembly is not built for this purpose, we are havingplenty of difficulties because the General Assembly has not taken on certainfunctions, for example, in regard to the Emergency Force and so on, for which itwas not equipped.

Fourthly, the existing representation, which ignores the 525 millions of China, hasto be rectified.....

Last year the Assembly appointed a committee of the whole [resolution 992 (x)]for the amendment of the Charter. We believe that this problem is part of theissues of the amendment of the Charter. Therefore this problem must receiveconsideration either by that committee, with the request that it should receivepriority, or the Assembly should appoint some other representative group to gointo the whole of this question. Because, as I said, there is not one consideration;there are large numbers of considerations. And a resolution that is put in thisway, so that its provisions would require the ratification of two-thirds of theStates, including the five permanent members, is subject to the danger thatnothing very much may happen.

My delegation wants to throw out this suggestion, and this suggestion is not onefor postponement. We share with everybody the view that this is not a matter tobe shelved. It is a matter to be considered; but mere consideration is not enough,it must result in a remedy that is adequate...

PERSONNEL POLICY OF THE UNITED NATIONS


[The personnel policy of the United Nations was discussed by the GeneralAssembly, at the request of the Secretary-General, Trygve Lie.

Following attacks during the McCarthy era on alleged "subversives" in thestaff of the United Nations, the Secretary-General had succumbed to UnitedStates opinion, and dismissed a number of staff members who had refused toanswer questions by the Internal Security Sub-Committee of the United StatesSenate as to their membership of the Communist Party of the United States,invoking the protection against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. He co-operated with the United StatesGovernment in its investigation of the United Nations staff of United Statesnationality and provided facilities for that purpose in the United NationsHeadquarters. This created serious concern among delegations and others thatthe independence and integrity of the international civil service might beundermined.

The Secretary-General presented to the General Assembly the opinion of acommission of jurists he had appointed to advise him. It recommended thedismissal of staff members who had refused to answer questions on possiblesubversive activity against the "host country." Though the Secretary-General didnot accept all the recommendations of this Commission, the report heightenedconcern as it gave a special position to the host country.

During the discussion of the matter in the General Assembly, thirteen WesternStates moved a resolution. India, together with eleven other Asian and ArabStates, presented another resolution. The following is the speech by Mr. Menonon the resolution sponsored by India.

On April 1, 1953, the Asian-Arab resolution was rejected by 29 votes to 21, with 8abstentions. The Western draft was adopted.]

...I propose to deal with the draft resolution before us paragraph by paragraph,explaining it and showing why we support it.

I feel sure that there is no need for me to argue that the second paragraph of thepreamble will be one which the General Assembly will desire to record and voteon, namely, "Taking note of the satisfaction reported by the Secretary-General

97 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventh Session, Plenary Meetings, pages663-66

with respect to the efficiency and integrity of the Secretariat." While it is true thatthis sentiment is shared by all governments and delegations, and while it is truethat all of us would want it to be proclaimed, it is equally true that numerousdelegations, in the course of the debate, have expressed the view and this alsoseems to be the general impression that has long been created in the public mindthat a considerable degree of unrest, or other bad feelings, exist in the Secretariatof the Organisation.

I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Indian delegation and theother delegations which sponsored this draft resolution, to state publicly that wehave the highest regard for the efficiency and integrity of the members of theSecretariat. Were it not so, this matter would have come up from one delegationor another long before there was a report from the Secretary-General. Indeed,when my delegation first wrote to the President on this matter, it was with a viewto clearing up all these questions, so that this kind of atmosphere that surroundsthe men and women who work for us, who make the work of our Assembly, theimplementation of our decisions and the considerations of problems by uspossible, should not go unnoticed and that they should not be under any suspicion.I therefore hope that those who have not subscribed to this draft resolutionhitherto will consider that this aspect of it is worth recording and proclaiming.

Then we come to the third paragraph of the preamble, concerning the "importanceof maintaining and developing an international civil service in accordance withthe purposes and provisions of the Charter." What we have perhaps in too briefand abrupt form stated in this draft resolution is contained in the other draft

resolution (A/L/146/Rev.1)98 in its quotation from the Charter; we have noobjection to the preamble as set forth there. It is significant, however, that one ofthe most important features of both these draft resolutions is this reference to theinternational character of the civil service, expressed either in terms of our havingto conform to the provisions of the Charter, or as in our draft resolution. Here Ishould like to say that the discussion which has taken place has clearly shown thatwhat we are discussing is really not some small matter that has come up, but thequestion of the whole of the administrative machinery, its temper, its calibre andthe basis on which it should rest. I therefore find myself in disagreement with therepresentative of Canada, who told us:

"Today our concern is not about millions but a few thousands of men andwomen in the Secretariat of the United Nations."

That may be the superficial aspect of it. What we are considering are the mainprinciples on which the international civil service should be based.

If this is correct, then any review of the problem, which means an advance fromthe position already reached in the Charter, requires a close and detailed study,

98 Draft resolution by France, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and ten otherWestern and Latin American countries.

as indicated in the fourth paragraph of the preamble.

This item has come before us not quite in the usual way. I do not mean tosay that it has come up in an improper way, but that it has come up fordiscussion in the Assembly without going before a committee. I do not for amoment suggest that there is anything improper, wrong or procedurallyquestionable in this, but it does give rise to difficulties in the sense that neithergovernments nor we ourselves in a collective way have had an opportunity todiscuss and consider, comment or formulate any proposals on the legal, thepolitical or the various other aspects of this problem.

If it is to be suggested that these aspects do not exist, the briefest way of mymeeting that argument would be to try and quote from the speeches that havealready been made. I would ask the representative of France to forgive me if Istart with him first not because I want to single him out. The representative ofFrance said:

"It is the first time that, apart from the technical discussions in the FifthCommittee, the members of the United Nations have been called upon topass judgement on the work, organisation, operation, merits andweaknesses of the Secretariat, and on the steps which should be taken toimprove it."

That does not look as though we were dealing with a small problem of a fewthousand people. Then he went on to say:

"Official optimism is now no longer in place; and it would be wrong toignore the serious crises through which the Secretariat has been passingfor several months."

The French representative said further:

"It is inevitable that such relations should not be easy. Obviously theyraise very delicate problems owing to the intimacy and multiplicity of thecontacts between the Secretariat and the host countries."

He said "host countries," in the plural. That goes to the root of the considerationof this problem. He also said:

"Much energy could be used on more constructive and useful tasks thanthis ghost-hunt or witch-hunt."

These are not my words. The representative of France continued:

"Many of the best members of the staff are thinking of resigning, whileothers are discouraged. Unless care is taken, the stability and efficiency of

the Organisation may also be endangered."

He went on to say further:

"If, in connection with his work, a conflict arises between his obligationsas an international civil servant and his duties as a citizen, his only choiceis either to remain faithful to the Organisation or to submit hisresignation."

The representative of France went on in that fashion. I do not propose to discussthis, but since I have quoted the delegation of France I should also like to quoteone or two other people.

The representative of the Netherlands said that the Secretary-General, inparagraph 97 of his report, had endeavoured to define the expression "subversiveactivities," but Mr. Von Balluseck wondered whether that definition was preciseenough. The same question could be raised, he said, with respect to paragraph87. The Netherlands representative went on to say: "Furthermore, I have somedoubts whether the report gives a full picture of the position taken by theSecretary-General." The representative of the Netherlands drew our attention tothe point that staff members should not be automatically dismissed "exclusivelyon the grounds that they have used their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in official inquiries concerned with subversive activities andespionage." He said he could not agree with that.

These matters have been referred to by delegation after delegation. My purposein quoting them is not to try to throw the burden of proof upon delegations thatdo not support the draft resolution, but merely to point out that whateverconclusions we may reach, here is a problem with so many facets that eventhose who put their names on draft resolutions have not necessarily differingpoints of view, but views covering a very wide field - the jurisprudence ofmember States, their ideas of law, their ideas of public conduct and everythingelse...

The Secretary-General has been good enough to say that no charges of anycharacter have been made, much less been proved, against any member of thesecretariat. I am sure we are all happy to hear that. Therefore it appears that theproblem before us is not one that can be easily disposed of without going intothe question of principle.

A considerable amount of material has been sent to us. We had the Secretary-General's report before this debate opened. It was our general impression that itwould largely be based upon what is now called the jurists' opinion. With greatrespect, I say that the jurists' opinion, so far as we are now concerned, is "out ofcourt" because the Secretary-General has told us that he has not accepted it, thathe has accepted only some parts of it. What we have is what the Secretary-

General has made his own, and therefore it saves us the embarrassment ofdiscussing from a juridical point of view the propositions of law andjurisprudence that have been propounded in that report. Thus, that is out of theway.

We have also been provided with volumes of evidence and records ofexaminations conducted by committees sitting in this country. It is neither mydesire, nor would I consider it proper and appropriate, to go into any detail ofthis or into the manner in which these hearings were conducted or anything ofthat character. It has nothing to do with me, but I am entitled to say that in thesedocuments I find certain examples, of which I shall cite only one.

If a witness is asked whether he would be loyal to the United Nations or to hisown country and is thus put on the horns of a dilemma, then I think it isappropriate for us to take that question into consideration and be able to instructour servants as to the conditions of employment and what their obligations areand what they are not. I do not answer these questions. I simply say thatproblems of this character have been raised. It is equally necessary for us toconsider whether or not it is appropriate, if a person withholds evidence inaccordance with his constitutional right... that we, as employers, should use theeconomic pressure of employment in order that he may go back upon what heregards as his right.

I find it difficult to accept the idea that fear of incrimination is the same thing ashaving committed a crime. A crime must be proved beyond all reasonable

doubt, so Sir Gladwyn Jebb99 told us this morning. Now, what is reasonabledoubt? It is doubt of reasonable minds. Reasonable minds are minds that arenot inspired by passion, but by reason, according to law. What is more, it ispossible to prove a crime beyond reasonable doubt only when the examinationof witnesses is undertaken by counsel on one side and cross-examination takesplace by the other, and there are no questions from the court itself. But thesehearings are not conducted by courts...

In the very beginning, my delegation, in dealing with the principles of thismatter, said that we did not accept this view of "host" country. We are all hostcountries and it is quite arguable that another country may have laws which themajority of the people in this Assembly may not be willing to understand in thesame way.

At the same time, practical problems have arisen. The draft resolution we haveput forward does not have the implication that the representative of the UnitedKingdom thought it had. I am sure that he does not think so as to its purpose,which is not to hamstring any action that the Secretary-General might take...

99 The representative of the United Kingdom

At the same time, I am fully aware of the fact that we have to take into accountthe great many misconceptions about this Organisation as a result of the kind ofpublicity to which the representative of France referred in his speech, andtherefore something will have to be done. That is why we have produced thisdraft resolution. My delegation and others associated with us have put forwardthis draft resolution without placing any blame or responsibility. We havesimply asked for a study of this question...

Before retiring from this rostrum, I should like to say, mainly on behalf ofmy own delegation because we have not had the opportunity of consulting theco-sponsors of this draft, that a new factor has recently entered the situation: thatis, that the implementation of this resolution would fall to a new incumbent of

the office of Secretary General.100 In those circumstances, while I entirelyagree that there is no personal question involved here, the reference being solelyto the institution of Secretary-General, then, if the Assembly in its wisdomthinks that this discussion has provided adequate guidance and that nothingfurther is now required, I feel sure that those who have sponsored this draftresolution would be prepared to give every consideration to the idea that boththese drafts should be shelved or withdrawn, or that some other draft should besubstituted, saying simply that the Assembly has considered these problems andreaffirms the principles of the Charter...

TRIBUTE TO DAG HAMMARSKJOLD


1961101

[Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, Secretary-General of the United Nations, died onSeptember 17, 1961, in a mysterious plane crash as he flew from Leopoldville,now Kinshasa, to Ndola to meet Mr. Moise Tshombe in order to secure an endto conflict in Katanga and resolve the problem of Katanga within theframework of the unity of the Congo.]

I come to the rostrum on this sad occasion to pay a tribute on behalf of theGovernment and the people of India to a great world statesman, a distinguishedSecretary-General of the United Nations and a friend of all of us...

100 On April 7, 1953, the General Assembly accepted the resignation of Trygve Lie and electedDag Hammarskjold as the Secretary-General of the United Nations.101 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixteenth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages13-14

We cannot, however, regard this as merely an occasion of personal loss, becausemen, once they are born, know that they will die some time. This is a greatpolitical event. It is an accident; it is a great international tragedy; if it is anythingelse it will become an international crime. It is the desire of my Government andpeople that there should be a complete investigation of this matter when theoccasion arises, and as soon as it is possible, so that the world will be assured thatthose who travel around functioning on behalf of the United Nations shall be freefrom hostile action by those from whom it is not expected.

My country is very shocked by this event, but we hope that the void that has beenleft by the sudden departure of the Secretary-General will not leave us stunned insuch a way as not to perform our duties. In a sense it is a test for the UnitedNations because there are no provisions laid down, but since we are here asleaders of the nations of the world it is our duty to find a way out.

To Dag Hammarskjold himself - for his great devotion to the cause of the UnitedNations and for the friendliness which he brought to bear among the nations of theOrganisation - we pay our tribute. To the people of Sweden, who have now

sacrificed the second of their great citizens to the cause of international peace,102

our hearts go out, and I am quite sure that the Assembly will want to rememberthe colleagues of Dag Hammarskjold, the other servants of the United Nations,who perished with him in the same catastrophe, and I wish to convey oursympathy to their families on this occasion.

With regard to the Congo itself, the best tribute we can pay to the Secretary-General is to see that the Security Council resolutions are implemented. Just halfan hour ago has come the news of a cease-fire in Katanga. That may be thebeginning, or perhaps the completion, of the implementation of the resolution ofthe United Nations and a movement from struggle to peace.

For all these reasons we should do well to remember the service rendered by thelate Secretary-General in this connection, often under criticism, and it is not to bewondered at that any person who is dynamic and who has a policy and ideas toput forward should some time incur hostility and criticism. Neither that personnor the critic, therefore, is to be regarded as being doomed to condemnation for alltimes. That is part of the incidence of public life, as such, and Dag Hammarskjoldtook it in that way. All representatives will remember that when last year, whilewe were at the United Nations, there were demands for his resignation he said,very courageously, that it was very easy to resign but much more difficult to stayon. He said that if it was the desire of the smaller nations in the Assembly that heshould resign he would do so; but that, on the contrary, if it was not their desire

102 Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden (1895-1948), United Nations Mediator in Palestine, wasassassinated in Jerusalem on September 17, 1948.

that he should resign, he would stay.103

Mr. Hammarskjold brought the importance of the United Nations to bear in Africamore than in any other part of the world. Perhaps those who have been here forsix or seven years will realise that until about three years ago Africa was spokenof only in passing. It was only in 1957-1958, I believe, that in the Secretary-General’s report, Africa was fully projected as an important part of UnitedNations activities - not merely in the sense of receiving milk from UNICEF orantibiotics from WHO, but as part of the problem of restoring the imbalance ofthe world in which the present African position emerged. To Africa, more thananything else, his later years were devoted, and to Africa we look for thecorrection of these imbalances which will help to restore peace and harmony inthe world.

To the late Secretary-General, therefore, we pay our tribute, and as far as we areconcerned we should like to assure this Assembly that, to the best of our abilityand to the best of the ability of our Government and our people, we shall devoteourselves to the fulfilment of the purposes of the Charter and the resolutionspassed by the United Nations - more particularly with regard to the Congo, toAfrica and to other matters.

WELCOME TO NEW MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS

[Admission of new members to the United Nations was blocked from 1950 asthe Western countries vetoed eastern European States and the USSRcountered by vetoing all other applicants, including several Asian States.India, and Krishna Menon in particular, tried hard to break the deadlock.Some sixteen new members were admitted in a "package deal" in 1955 whena compromise was reached. The following are speeches by Mr. Menon on theadmission of some of the new members since that time.]

MALAYA

Speech at the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on September 17,

1957104

103 The Soviet Union condemned Mr. Hammarskjold for the actions of the United Nations in theCongo.104 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Twelfth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages8-9

With Malaya my country has very ancient and historic connections. In the thirdcentury before Christian era, before the emissaries of the Emperor Asoka of thattime went to preach peace and co-operation in this land - long before that -geologists have it that, by overland route on the continent that is now submerged,trade was carried on between India and Malaya of that day. Later on, through theStraits of Malacca we traded with China, and this connection between the twoterritories was later cemented by the movement of populations. So today in thisvast land there are some 700,000 people of Indian origin who are either citizens ofor domiciled in the Federation of Malaya.

In welcoming the Federation of Malaya to membership in the United Nations, weare happy to recall the fact that once again the United Kingdom, in the exercise ofits sovereignty and by the process of co-operation, has enabled one of its formercolonial territories to become an independent nation.

On this occasion, the names of two men, who are not present in the Assembly,come foremost to mind. One is the present Prime Minister of the Federation ofMalaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, whose statesmanship and patience hasenabled both the United Kingdom and the several States that compose theFederation, to overcome the difficulties that made the achievement ofindependence a very long process extending over several years of negotiation.

The other name that comes to one’s mind is that of another statesman, aScotsman, the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in India, Mr. MalcolmMacdonald, who a few years ago started what then seemed the impossible task ofwelding the various communities and territories of Malaya in preparation forindependence.

It would not perhaps be inappropriate at this moment to say that, irrespective ofthe different racial stocks that exist in the territory, it is possible, given the willand the desire to co-operate, for them to be united in a form of independencewithin the aegis of the Commonwealth of Nations. This may be an instancewhich has lessons for all of us. We in India are happy to feel that the process thatwe began as an act of faith in the United Kingdom and in ourselves and othermembers of the Commonwealth eight or nine years ago, when the territories thatbecame independent decided, upon their own free will and with no pressure fromthe older members of the Commonwealth, to remain in the fraternity - that act offaith stands justified today. Now the tenth member of the Commonwealth hasbeen admitted as a Member of the United Nations at the dawn of its independenceand welcomed by the other States in the same way as its predecessors.

This is a further step in the Asian revolution and the liberation of colonialpeoples. Now two or three small pieces of territory have yet to take this course,and we hope that the United Kingdom and others that have assisted in the processof the liberation of Malaya will not be found wanting in the processes which will

accomplish the same thing in regard to other territories...

That chapter of history which began 171 years ago, when the British went to thisplace and established a colony, and which has passed through variousvicissitudes, is now completed. We have no doubt that the attainment ofindependence by the Federation of Malaya is not merely the achievement of thatcountry and the United Kingdom, but is also one of great credit to the world, andits admission to the United Nations is a gain to us as it is to that country.

GUINEA

Speech at the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on December 12,

1958105

We join in congratulating the two main parties who made this event possible,namely, the new Republic of Guinea and the Republic of France.

While countries have won freedom before, the modern age has seen imperialismsabdicating their power and, at least in the last stage, in an atmosphere offriendship and co-operation or at least in the acceptance of the inevitability offreedom. We are also glad to feel that in the rise of the Republic of Guinea therehas been an expansion of the arena of freedom in West Africa, opened in recenttimes by the action of the United Kingdom in welcoming what was the formerGold Coast to the sisterhood of the nations of the Commonwealth.

We have no doubt at all that this event has had an impact on the awakening andthe fruition of the efforts of the people of West Africa, and I hope that the wholeof Africa will continue to have it in the same way.

In the case of Guinea there is one other factor which we must not lose sight of,and that is the great national movement which has enabled Guinea to becomeindependent today - and the full participation in it of the great trade unionorganisations - which gives us the hope or the insurance of social equity andsocial progress in this new republic of Africa. We welcome this eighty-secondmember, therefore, not merely as an addition to our large number, but as onewhich will bring to this Assembly new ideas and which will contribute generallyto the lessening of tensions and to the richness which so-called small nations havecontributed to the work of this Organisation...

We hope that the admission of Guinea will be followed by the admission of othercountries with which it was linked until a few days ago. Since 1946, Guinea hasbeen a part of the French West African Federation. Only two days ago we readthat Dahomey, the Ivory Coast and other parts of that French federation had

105 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth Session, Plenary Meetings,pages 571-572

become republics. We hope that the republican form of government, the contentof it, will justify their application for admission and our welcoming them here...

I believe that Guinea is the first element in the French colonial empire proper -that is, excluding Cambodia, Laos, Tunisia and Morocco, which wereprotectorates whose sovereignties were, theoretically, only mothered by thepresence of an empire on top of them. This is the first part of 4.5 million squaremiles of colonial territory of the French empire in Africa which, by dint of its ownefforts and by the co-operation of the leadership of the French Government, hasbeen able to come into the United Nations...

My Government, which recognised the Government of the Republic of Guinea assoon as it was born, joins with all of you not only in congratulating this newrepublic, but in hoping that its admission to the United Nations will rapidly leadto the expansion of freedom in West Africa, in the rest of Equatorial Africa - notonly in French Equatorial Africa - but in the rest of the former mandated and trustterritories such as Tanganyika, and, as a previous speaker has said, in two or threeyears` time when the neighbouring territories come into the Organisation, wewould have altered the composition of this body sufficiently to make it morerepresentative of the world as it is.

THIRTEEN AFRICAN STATES AND CYPRUS

Statement in the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, on September 20,

1960106

... today we think of these fourteen new nations which have joined us - some ofthem on the continent of Africa, others like Cyprus, populated by people whohave inherited an ancient civilisation. I think it is also right to say that, in some ofthese cases, as in Somali land and Cyprus, for example, the United Nations hastaken a direct part, if I may say so, in that liberation. Not only those who havegained liberty but also those who denied them liberty have learned the lesson ofliberty because the burden of empire is not always on those over whom the empirerules, but on the people of the empire itself. They may also rest content inthinking that, with the expansion of the political dimensions of humanity, theyhave contributed to this vast Organisation greater and greater power towardspeace because empire and peace do not live together. The greater the inroads wemake into the negation of freedom which empire represents, the greater the hopeand the prospect of peace in this world.

My delegation would also like to recall on this occasion the great numbers ofmen, women and statesmen who have contributed much both in the rulingcountries and in the ruled or oppressed countries in order to bring about thisconsummation. I think it is only right that we should also remember those men


and women who made the supreme sacrifice in order that those who came afterthem might become citizens of a free country.

The United Nations can congratulate itself that it is receiving into its fold millionsof human beings who, perhaps a generation ago, would not have been thought ofin this context, but who today represent in their own persons and presence here asindependent nations the triumph of the principles of the Charter. But that triumphwould have been short-lived unless the imbalances that exist in the world, largelyas the result of previous conditions, are not redressed both by the efforts of thepeople who are liberated and by those who are in more privileged positions.

I conclude by saying that, even before this Assembly rises, we hope to welcomeinto this fold newer elements who represent this freedom and that the wholecontinent of Africa, the rest of Asia, the remnants of the colonial empires will alsosee either the light of day or the curtain which keeps them away from it will beripped open by the force and energy of peoples. Once again, I wish tocongratulate all these new countries that have come into the United Nations...

SENEGAL AND MALI


1960107

It is with a sense of privileged duty that my delegation appears on this rostrum, onits own behalf and also on behalf of the delegation of Pakistan to convey ourcongratulations to the two young Republics - Senegal and Mali - which have nowjoined us as States members of the United Nations.

We have reason to congratulate ourselves on more than one count. First of all, thewisdom and statesmanship of the leaders of these countries have saved us fromthe fear of another crisis and another seat of confusion on the African continent.The Assembly owes them a debt of gratitude for having been able to resolve theirdisputes in this way and for having given a demonstration of the implementationof the principles of the Charter which calls upon people to resolve their disputes

by peaceful means...108

My country is very happy to feel that on this continent of Africa where in 1950there were four independent countries - that is, if you include South Africa as anindependent country, large numbers of its people not being independent - thereare now some twenty-six independent countries, covering a population of 178

107 Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifteenth Session, Plenary Meetings, pages209-10108 The Federation of Mali, encompassing Senegal and Mali, established in 1958, was grantedindependence in June 1960. But Senegal and Mali separated soon and the two States applied formembership in the United Nations.

million out of a total estimated population of 222 million. The great Frenchempire with its area of 4.5 million square miles has now only three-quarters of amillion square miles under its tutelage. It is our hope that with the victory offreedom in Algeria, the greater part of that area also will come within the ambit offreedom. The remainder of what is truly dark Africa is South West Africa - I usethe language of the present rulers - and Portugal in Africa. We have no doubt thatthe vigour and the determination of the African peoples, backed by enlightenedpublic opinion and the conscience of humanity, will see the dismemberment ofthe Portuguese empire and the liberation of the African peoples and others subjectto Portuguese colonialism...

NIGERIA


My delegation is privileged to be associated with other Commonwealth countriesand to be associated on behalf of the Government and people of India in the goodwishes expressed from this rostrum both to the people and Government of Nigeriaand the people and Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for thepresent occasion when Nigeria has become an independent country. I have alsothe great privilege of speaking on behalf of our neighbour countries of Burma andNepal, who asked me to do so.

We from India have special reason to feel gratified on this occasion, because thecurrent of political evolution which was released by the emancipation of India...that process, though sometimes obstructed by the smaller-minded administrators,has progressed, and today we have large numbers of these territories which wereformerly colonial countries that have become independent. Not only have theybecome independent, but they have become independent on the one hand, by theprocess of resistance, and, at the same time, by following that resistance alongroutes that are not violent.

In Africa, this current manifested itself in the liberation of the colony of the GoldCoast, now the great Republic of Ghana, which regained its territories that it had athousand years ago in the great Empire of Ghana.

Now, Nigeria, though its name and its present geographical boundaries are theresult of those pages of history which we desire to forget for the four hundredyears that preceded British settlement, and though its territorial boundaries are theresult of imperial occupation and conquest, that land and its peoples who werethen resident there came into the context of international relations in the firstmillennium before the birth of Christ. From the ports of Egypt and India sailedthe ships of the Phoenician Empire into Nigeria in order to conduct trade, and so


did the Carthaginians. So from all times there have been relations...

There is at the present moment a comparatively unknown period between thePhoenician traders and, so far as I know, the later period when the French madean incursion into these territories, only halted by internal troubles in France itself.I would like to draw the curtain over the period that follows, because this is notthe occasion for it. Then comes the challenge to the Portuguese monopoly, whenthe Portuguese protested to King Edward IV of England because some of his menhad gone on to the coast of Guinea and they said they had a Portuguese monopolyin this area and no one should go there. So began the conflict between empires,which is always the hope of dependent peoples.

Then came the great liberal movements in England which were responsible - and Isay this deliberately - which were responsible for the overthrow of slavery and theliberation of a large number of African peoples from the status they then hadeither in their own homeland or in other parts of the world.

The British Empire settled Nigeria; the present boundaries began gradually toemerge. It is a matter for congratulation to the British people and a matter ofsatisfaction to the Nigerian people that, unlike some other parts of the world, theirmany institutions, tribal systems, and so on, for various reasons which we neednot go into now, were left comparatively free and intact. The liberaladministration of West Africa enabled the emergence of the present Federationwith its territorial particularity and, at the same time, a great sense of unity. Ithink, if the United Kingdom will forgive me, it is occasion not only to pay tributeto the British Government and British State as such, and to the Nigerian peoplebut also to the large number of liberal administrators of West Africa - who aredifferent from the administrators in some other parts of the Empire, whoadvocated the policy, though perhaps paternalistically, of the participation of thepeoples themselves...

The relations of our own country with Nigeria have been of an economiccharacter. It is singular that that area, like the rest of West Africa, is surprisinglyfree from any trace of racial discrimination. It is a happy thing that in thosecountries of the former British Empire which are now independent, and entirelyindependent members of an association which we call the Commonwealth, whereall power and authority derives solely from their own people, there is no racialdiscrimination in reverse. My own country would dislike to see, either on accountof past history or on account of a newer form of colonialism, the emergence inany of these territories of a practice against a non-indigenous minority whichrecalls the "apartheid" practice in the Union of South Africa. Discrimination inone direction or another is against the principles of the Charter and all elementaryconceptions of human relationships.

Together, therefore, we welcome into this community of nations another greatAfrican territory, its boundaries shaped perhaps by pages of history of which

everybody need not necessarily be proud - but progress always has diverseelements in it - and they come here through progress made by their own effortsvery largely, responded to, as their leaders said in the Conference in London, bythe peoples and the Government of the metropolitan country in various degrees.

The number of the population liberated in Africa reached a total of 178 million inthe past twenty years...

Over a hundred years of peaceful administration have brought into existence afederation - and a federation is a far more difficult political structure to work thana unitary government - which is today functioning. In the continent of Africa thestruggle for that independence has been carried on comparatively peacefully.What justification on earth can exist for the continued domination andsuppression of vast territories either by one country or another?

The United Nations, therefore, can point to all these territories as witness of thesuccess of its gospel and also as justification for the demand that it must makeupon other colonial countries.

At the end of the year perhaps others also will join until on that great continentwhich has now become so significant in the history of the development of peoplesthere alone will remain the empires of Portugal and of South Africa dominatingother peoples. We have not the slightest doubt that the sense of liberty and thepassion for freedom that rests in the minds of peoples, the example of thegreatness of these nations, their proximity, and the development - economic,social and spiritual - they will make will be a force which no empire in the worldcan resist. This is the hope that we must have today, and I, on behalf of myGovernment and the people of India and of my colleagues of Nepal and Burma,tender congratulations to Nigeria and to the Government of the United Kingdom,and to the United Nations itself, for being able to welcome to our ranks a newnation with new contributions to make.

Documents

Krishna Menon - Decolonisation Peace and the Unit