Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

that, if the United Nations Command is dissolved, the Armistice Agreement itself will also have to cease to exist." Continuing, he said that "the draft resolution of the United States side is no more than a plot to justify the occupation of South Korea by the United States troops in the name of the United Nations and to create two Koreas to perpetuate the division of Korea." He concluded with the warning, "The Korean people will certainly make all the foreign troops withdraw from South Korea and realize, sooner or later, the historic cause of the country's reunification

Speaking on October 23, Ambassador Moynihan compared the two draft resolutions in terms of their practical contributions to reducing tensions on the Korean peninsula.

He noted that the 28-power draft resolution explicitly reaffirmed U.S. willingness to terminate the UN Command, provided the Armistice Agreement was maintained and said:

. the chief concern of my government is that the Armistice Agreement, which has been the basis for peace and security in the Korean peninsula for over 20 years, be maintained in the absence of alternate lasting arrangements between the South and the North. I wish to emphasize that the Armistice Agreement is not merely a cease-fire, but a carefully designed structure for monitoring and policing the armistice itself. It remains the only legal basis for the present cessation of hostilities on the Korean peninsula."

He recalled the proposal in Secretary Kissinger's Septtember 22 address for convening a conference of the parties directly concerned and declared that the negotiations called for by the 28-power resolution constituted "the only proposal now before this body that recognizes that in matters relating to the future of Korea and to security in the peninsula both Korean Governments should be included." The resolution, he said, "provides a basis for discussion and action which will enhance the prospects for peace and security on the Korean peninsula.

Regarding the 43-power draft resolution, he said:

"The opposing resolution calls for termination of the UN Command and replacement of the Armistice Agreement by a peace agreement. Nothing is said of how the mechanisms of the peace agreement are to function and what is to act as a restraint on the parties in the interval while the peace agreement is being discussed.

Whoever is familiar with the Korean problem knows that a situation in which the

Armistice Agreement machinery is not functioning
and where there is no assurance that any other
agreement would take its place is a highly unstable

one.

"We cannot accept the view that the termination of the UN Command without provision for the continuation of the armistice would have little consequence for the peace and security of the peninsula. . . ."

He declared that the resolution was not in accordance with past Assembly resolutions because it did not encourage discussions by all the parties concerned with the problem of peace and security in the peninsula. On the contrary,

. . it has the clear intention to exclude one of the principal parties, the Republic of Korea, from any such discussions. For our part, we will not accept any such exclusion of the Republic of Korea, which represents over two-thirds of the Korean people.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In a subsequent statement on October 29 Ambassador Moynihan reminded the Assembly of the reasons for the presence of the UN Command in the Republic of Korea and of the American forces which are also there. He said:

"The UN Command

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

arose in the aftermath of a sudden, brutal, calculated invasion of the Republic of Korea by its neighbor to the north, an act of aggression--plain, unmistaken, unchallenged by world opinion at the time. . General Assembly called this 'aggression' and called upon the nations of the world to come to support the Republic of Korea, which had been invaded.

the

"Sixteen nations responded, the invaders were thrown back, the status quo ante was restored--a fact clear to history. In the long history of the world rarely has an aggression been so naked, so unambiguous, so clear for all the opinion of the world to see. And it was--to the honor of the United Nations--rebuffed. It failed.

"In order that this should not recur, command was established on the armistice line. That command continues almost a quarter century later. It was not the desire of the United States to be in South Korea. It is not the desire of the United States to be in South Korea. But let no one suppose we are embarrassed by our presence or apologetic about it. We were there in defense of the principles of independence and the territorial

integrity of a state, the protection of which is the fundamental purpose of this body."

On October 29 the First Committee considered first the Algerian proposal that priority be given the 43power draft resolution, and defeated the proposal by a rollcall vote of 52 in favor to 64 opposed (U.S.), with 23 abstentions.

In favor: Albania, Algeria, Benin, Bulgaria,
Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian S.S.R., Cambodia,
Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus,
Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia,
German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-
Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Iraq, Kuwait, Laos,
Libya, Malagasy Republic, Mali, Malta, Mauritania,
Mongolia, Mozambique, Pakistan, Poland, Romania,
Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Somalia,
Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Ukrainian S.S.R.,
U.S.S.R., Yemen (Aden), Yemen (Sana), Yugoslavia,
Zambia.

Against: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas,
Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Central Afri-
can Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji,
France, Gabon, Gambia, Federal Republic of Germany,
Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Lesotho, Liberia,
Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius,
Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger,
Norway, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philip-
pines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Swaziland,
Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United
States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstaining: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Chad, Finland, Jamaica,
Kenya, Lebanon, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru,
Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Trinidad
and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Zaire.

At the request of Senegal, the four operative paragraphs of the 28-power draft resolution were voted on separately and each was adopted by a recorded vote. The resolution as a whole was approved by a rollcall vote of 59 (U.S.) to 51, with 29 abstentions.

Uruguay formally requested that the 43-power draft resolution not be voted upon because the approval of one resolution implied exclusion of the other. This proposal was withdrawn following an appeal by the Ivory Coast to permit the Committee to vote on both lines of thinking as reflected in the two draft resolutions. The 43-power draft resolution was then approved by a rollcall vote of 51 to 38 (U.S.), with 50 abstentions.

Assembly Action

On November 18 the General Assembly in plenary session adopted by rollcall votes both resolutions that had been approved by the First Committee.

The 28-power resolution was adopted by a vote of 59 (U.S.) to 51, with 29 abstentions.

In favor: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados,
Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Central African
Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France,
Gabon, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece,
Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland,
Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory
Coast, Japan, Jordan, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg,
Malawi, Maldives, Mauritius, Morocco, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Paraguay,
Philippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Singapore,
Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United
Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: Albania, Algeria, Benin, Botswana,
Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian S.S.R., Cambodia,
Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba,
Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethio-
pia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iraq, Kuwait,
Laos, Libya, Malagasy Republic, Mali, Malta,
Mauritania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Poland,
Romania, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Ukrainian
S.S.R., U.S.S. R., Yemen (Aden), Yemen (Sana),
Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Abstaining: Afghanistan, Argentina, Bahrain,
Bhutan, Burma, Chad, Cyprus, Fiji, Finland, India,
Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal,
Niger, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru,
Qatar, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and
Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates,
Zaire.

The 43-power draft resolution was adopted by 54 to 43 (U.S.), with 42 abstentions.

In favor: Albania, Algeria, Benin, Botswana,
Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian S.S.R.,
Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China,
Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt,
Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, German Democratic
Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,
Hungary, Iraq, Laos, Libya, Malagasy Republic,
Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mozambique,
Nigeria, Panama, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, São Tomé
and Príncipe, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syria,

Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R.,
Yemen (Aden), Yemen (Sana), Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium,
Bolivia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, France, Gabon, Federal Republic of
Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast,
Japan, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman,
Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Swaziland, Turkey,
United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.

Abstaining: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria,
Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Cyprus, Ecuador, Fiji,
Finland, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica,
Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives,
Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Paki-
stan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines,
Portugal, Qatar, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri
Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Zaire.

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICIES OF APARTHEID

The General Assembly at its 30th session again referred to its Special Political Committee the perennial agenda item--dating back to 1952--on "Policies of Apartheid of the Government of South Africa." The Committee's substantive consideration of the item took place at 23 meetings between October 8 and November 6. Nearly 50 states took part in the debate which resulted in the approval of seven resolutions.

On October 1 the Committee agreed without objection to accede to the requests of the Special Committee against Apartheid to allow representatives of the African National Congress of South Africa and the PanAfricanist Congress of Azania, two liberation movements recognized by the OAU, to participate as observers in the debate. Representatives of these movements also took part as observers in the Committee's observance on October 10 of a Day of Solidarity with South African Political Prisoners.

6/ Established in 1962 as "Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa." The 18 members in 1975 were Algeria, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukrainian S.S.R.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »