of Guinea-Bissau and its admission to the United Nations. He said, in part:

this is a moment of profound satisfaction for the United States. My government warmly welcomes the agreement for the independence of Guinea-Bissau, and strongly supports the admission of Guinea-Bissau to the United Nations.

*

The United States has fully supported the legitimate aspirations of the people of Guinea-Bissau for self-determination. We are pleased to have Guinea-Bissau take its rightful place among the sovereign and independent nations of the world community and assume full membership in the United Nations.

Since the establishment of the United Nations hardly a generation ago, the founding members have been joined by some 85 new nations. Embracing more than half the population of the globe, these new states have achieved full status in the society of nations, as symbolized by United Nations membership. The United States is proud of the contribution it has made to the continuing process of self-determination that has produced this impressive achievement in less than thirty years. Perhaps nothing we, the United Nations, have achieved in carrying out the principles of our Charter has had greater meaning than the fulfillment of the principle of self-determination.

In keeping with its longstanding support for self-determination the United States strongly hopes that the evolution marked by the Security Council's action today in respect of Guinea-Bissau will continue and that it will soon be reflected in additional achievements in the other African territories. The admission of GuineaBissau to the United Nations, and the process by which this gratifying moment in history has been reached give us great encouragement for the future.

Press Release USUN-105 (74), Aug. 12, 1974. See also U.N. Doc. A/9712, Aug. 12, 1974.

On December 17, 1974, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 366 (1974), on the subject of Namibia. Ambassador John A. Scali, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, made a statement to the Council on December 17 which included the following on selfdetermination for Namibia:

We are encouraged by recent indications that South Africa may be reviewing its policies in Namibia. The South African Government has announced that the people of Namibia will be called upon to decide their own future; that all options, including full independence, are open to them; and that the people of the territory

may exercise their right to self-determination "considerably sooner" than the 10-year forecast made by the South African Foreign Minister in 1973. We believe that a peaceful and realistic solution should be sought now. We understand that a meeting is planned between representatives of various groups in the territory and the leaders of the white population to discuss the constitutional development of the territory. We believe that no significant element of the Namibian people or of Namibian political life should be excluded. However, much as we welcome the changes in recent South African Government statements on Namibia, we wish to state in all candor our view that those statements lack the necessary precision and detail. It is this very precision, along with positive actions, which is required to lay to rest the scepticism with which South African pronouncements on Namibia have been received in many quarters. What is called for is a specific, unequivocal statement of South Africa's intention with regard to the territory. We urge that government to make known as soon as possible its plans to permit the people of Namibia to exercise their right to self-determination in the near future.

We favor the development of renewed contacts between the Secretary-General and the South African Government to assist South Africa in arranging for the exercise of self-determination. The constructive involvement of the United Nations and the SecretaryGeneral can be of significant importance in ensuring an orderly transfer of power to the territory, which is to everyone's benefit. We also believe that South Africa should abolish discriminatory laws and practices and encourage freer political expression within the whole territory.

U.N. Doc. S/PV.1812, Dec. 17, 1974, pp. 77-81; Press Release USUN-200 (74), Dec. 17, 1974. Under the operative paragraphs of the Resolution, the Security Council:

1. Condemns the continued illegal occupation of the territory of Namibia by South Africa;

2. Condemns the illegal and arbitrary application by South Africa of racially discriminatory and repressive laws and practices in Namibia;

3. Demands that South Africa make a solemn declaration that it will comply with the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of June 21, 1971, in regard to Namibia and that it recognizes the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia as a nation, such declaration to be addressed to the Security Council of the United Nations;

4. Demands that South Africa take the necessary steps to effect the withdrawal, in accordance with Resolutions 264 (1969) and 269 (1969), of its illegal administration maintained in Namibia and to transfer power to the people of Namibia with the assistance of the United Nations;

5. Demands further that South Africa, pending the transfer of powers provided for in the preceding paragraph:

(a) Comply fully in spirit and in practice with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

(b) Release all Namibian political prisoners, including those imprisoned or detained in connection with offences under so-called internal security laws, whether such Namibians have been charged or tried or are held without charge and whether held in Namibia or South Africa ;

(c) Abolish the application in Namibia of all racially discriminatory and politically repressive laws and practices, particularly bantustans and homelands;

(d) Accord unconditionally to all Namibians currently in exile for political reasons full facilities for return to their country without risk of arrest, detention, intimidation or imprisonment;

6. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to meet on or before May 30, 1975, for the purpose of reviewing South Africa's compliance with the terms of this resolution and, in the event of non-compliance by South Africa, for the purpose of considering the appropriate measures to be taken under the Charter.

82

§3

Continuity and Succession of States

Diplomatic Relations and Recognition

Diplomatic Relations

On February 28, 1974, the Governments of Egypt and the United States agreed to resume diplomatic relations, and at the same time. they named ambassadors. A joint U.S.-Egyptian announcement said that "The two governments express the hope that this step will develop and strengthen relations between their countries and contribute substantially to better mutual understanding and cooperation."

See Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 10, No. 9, Mar. 4, 1974, p. 270.

On September 4, 1974, the United States and the German Democratic Republic (G.D.R.) agreed to establish diplomatic relations and to exchange ambassadors. A joint U.S.-G.D.R. communique issued on September 4, after negotiations in Washington during the period July 15-26, 1974, stated, inter alia, the agreement of the two governments to "establish diplomatic relations as of today in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961, and to base the conduct of these relations on the Charter of the United Nations." The communique noted the intention of the two governments to exchange diplomatic representatives with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.

Dept. of State Press Release, No. 355, Sept. 4, 1974; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXI, No. 1839, Sept. 23, 1974, p. 423. See also Ch. 4, § 2, infra, p. 179. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is at TIAS 7502; 23 UST 3227. It entered into force for the United States Dec. 13, 1972. The joint communique also stated the agreement of the two governments to "negotiate in the near future the settlement of claims and other financial matters outstanding between them." 569-769-75- 3

Recognition of Governments

Acts Short of Recognition

On March 14, 1974, the Department of State distributed a note to the non-Vietnamese participants in the International Conference on VietNam and to members of the International Commission of Control and Supervision (ICCS), with respect to violations by the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam of the 1973 Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam (TIAS 7542; 24 UST 1; entered into force for the United States January 27, 1973) and of the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam (TIAS 7568; 24 UST 485; entered into force for the United States March 2, 1973). See Ch. 14, § 1, infra, pp. 683-684.

On the matter of recognition, the U.S. note said:

The D.R.V. [Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam] has also followed its familiar course as chief spokesman for the so-called Provisional Revolutionary Government [P.R.G.] by seeking to claim governmental status for that party. The P.R.G. was not, however, as Hanoi has asserted, one of "12 governments" to sign the Act of the International Conference since it is not and has never been a government. Article 9 of that Act expressly stated that signature did not constitute recognition of any party in any case in which it was not previously accorded. As is well known, the P.R.G. controls but a small minority of the population of South Viet-Nam and has none of the inherent attributes of a government, such as a capital, a body of laws or jurisprudence, or any governmental institutions apart from some visible units of authority established to advance its international aspirations. Through sheer propaganda and the trappings of diplomacy, Hanoi is attempting to place on the P.R.G. the mantle of legitimacy which the people of South Viet-Nam have so emphatically denied it.

Dept. of State Press Release, No. 100, Mar. 15, 1974, p. 2.

Effect of Nonrecognition

The United States Supreme Court, on December 3, 1973, invited the Solicitor General to express the views of the United States in the case of Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Federal Republic of Germany, et al. (No. 73-492). See the 1973 Digest, Ch. 2, § 3, pp. 15-17, for background and details of the case.

In a Memorandum dated January 1974, Robert H. Bork, Solicitor General, raised no objection to intervention in the action by the German Democratic Republic (G.D.R.). The Memorandum stated that the "Suggestion of Interest" filed by the Executive Branch in 1969 with the United States District Court was "prompted by a request"

from the Federal Republic of Germany, but that since that time, "the relationship between the Federal Republic and the G.D.R. has undergone significant changes." The Memorandum noted that the Department of State "understands that if the Federal Republic were to prevail in its replevin action against the respondent Elicofon, the paintings which form the subject of the action would shortly be turned over by the Federal Republic to the G.D.R." The Memorandum said that "In view of these developments, the Executive Branch would not object if petitioner were granted leave to intervene in the District Court in the action instituted by the Federal Republic." In a footnote, the Memorandum stated that "We believe, however, that the courts below correctly decided the case on the record as it then stood." The Memorandum concluded that the United States had no objection to the granting of the petition for a writ of certiorari and the vacation of the judgment of the Court of Appeals so that the case "may be remanded to the District Court with a direction that the petitioner be permitted to intervene" in the action instituted by the Federal Republic.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari on Feb. 19, 1974, 415 U.S. 931, and denied a petition for rehearing on Apr. 15, 1974, 416 U.S. 952.

Applicability

On July 24, 1974, Robert Anderson, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Press Relations, said at a Department of State news briefing that "the question of recognition does not arise" with respect to U.S. diplomatic relations with the new Governments of Cyprus and Greece.

As to Cyprus, Mr. Anderson said that "The United States is conducting its relations with Mr. [Glafkos] Clerides, who, according to the Cyprus Constitution, has the right to act as President under certain circumstances." In response to a question whether that constituted "recognition of Clerides," Mr. Anderson said that "the question of recognition does not arise. We are conducting our relations with Mr. Clerides. And we leave it at that.”

Concerning the new Government of Greece under Prime Minister Constantine Caramanlis, Mr. Anderson, in reply to a question on recognition, said that "The question of recognition does not arise. And we are dealing with the new government and look forward to working with it."

Dept. of State News Briefing, DPC 127, July 24, 1974, pp. 1, 4.