premises. We do not ask that these restrictions apply to the activities of the PLO leaders undertaken within the territorial confines of the United Nations headquarters." The League asked that the PLO leaders "be permitted to move about in the U.S. only as necessary to fulfill the requirements of the U.N. invitation. . . ."

On November 18, 1974, Robert O. Blake, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, replied to the League as follows:

I have been asked by the Secretary of State to reply to your letter of November 7, 1974. Having considered Judge Costantino's decision and the arguments contained in your letter, as well as all aspects of the presence here of the PLO delegation for the Palestine debate and giving due regard to our responsibilities under the Headquarters Agreement, the Department has concluded that further restrictions on the activities of the PLO delegation above the strict ones already applied would not be appropriate.

You may be sure that we are fully conscious of and sympathetic with your preoccupations. Furthermore, you will recognize that the U.S. delegation strongly opposed the hearing of the PLO representatives in the manner in which they were invited. We appreciate receiving your letter, and you may be sure that we continue to give the closest attention to the concerns that motivated it.

Dept. of State File L/SCA. The 1947 Headquarters Agreement between the United States and the United Nations is at TIAS 1676; 61 Stat. 3416. It was signed at Lake Success June 26, 1947, and entered into force Nov. 21, 1947.

C.

United Nations

MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION

Membership

On September 30, 1974, the United Nations General Assembly, by a vote of 125-1-9 (United States) adopted Resolution 3207 (XXIX), calling upon the Security Council "to review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa in the light of the constant violation by South Africa of the principles of the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Earlier, the General Assembly had rejected the credentials of the South African delegation (see infra, pp. 34–35).

Subsequent to the vote, Ambassador John A. Scali, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, said the following with respect to Resolution 3207 (XXIX):

My delegation abstained on the resolution sending this matter to the Security Council. The preambular paragraphs contained statements of undeniable and tragic accuracy. As I said, the policy of apartheid we believe is illegal, immoral and fundamentally

repugnant. It is the obligation of the United Nations to be concerned and to seek to take steps to eliminate such outrages. We are not convinced, however, that the Security Council is the appropriate forum for discussing such issues. For this reason we did not believe it appropriate to cast a positive vote. Since others wished to discuss this question in the Security Council and we favor wherever legally possible the right of all members to state their views in the forum of their choice, we did not believe it appropriate for us to cast a negative vote. Since we were neither in a position to vote in favor nor of a mind to oppose, we have abstained. Of course, our abstention is without prejudice to the position my government will take in the Security Council when this matter is discussed there.

U.N. Doc. A/PV.2248, Sept. 30, 1974, pp. 106-107; Press Release USUN-121 (74), Sept. 30, 1974.

The Security Council debated the issue from October 25-30, 1974, and by a vote of 10-3 (United States, United Kingdom, France)–2, defeated a draft resolution calling for a recommendation by the Council to the Assembly that South Africa be expelled immediately from the United Nations. This was the first "triple veto" in U.N. history. Prior to the vote, Ambassador John A. Scali, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, made a statement condemning apartheid and South Africa's refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions on South Africa, Namibia, and Southern Rhodesia, but opposing expulsion. Ambassador Scali said, in part:

... some speakers have argued that the best way to bring the Government of South Africa to accomplish these objectives-to bring the South African Government to heel-is for this Council to recommend to the General Assembly that South Africa be expelled from membership in the United Nations Organization. My government believes that this kind of all-or-nothing approach would be a major strategic mistake, especially at a time when we have been hearing what may be new voices of conciliation out of South Africa. These new voices should be tested. We must not be discouraged, as we may have been last December when we instructed the SecretaryGeneral to abandon his contacts with the South Africans on Namibia.

... many of our colleagues during the past weeks have cited time and time again the poetic reference to "winds of change.” With the fresh winds of change blowing from an enlightened Portuguese policy toward Angola and Mozambique, effecting important and progressive changes in Southern Africa, the United States believes that it is incumbent upon this Organization not to deflect those very winds as they rush toward South Africa. By doing so, we confess that this Organization is powerless to influence change there. My government does not accept the view that the United Nations is powerless; rather, we strongly believe that it is through both increased bilateral con

tacts and the strong will of a determined United Nations that peaceful change will occur in South Africa.

. the United Nations was not founded to be simply a league of the just. Rather, in our view, it is a unique international forum for the exchanging of ideas, where those practicing obnoxious doctrines and policies may be made to feel the full weight of world opinion. There is, therefore, a clear, positive, and indispensable role for the United Nations in bringing change to South Africa.

My delegation believes that South Africa should continue to be exposed, over and over again, to the blunt expressions of the abhorrence of mankind for apartheid. South Africans could hear of this abhorrence only from afar, were we to cast them from our ranks, beyond the range of our voices. Our analysis is that expulsion would say to the most hardened racist elements in South Africa that their indifference to our words and resolutions had been justified. We think it would say to the South Africans that we have not heard, or do not wish to encourage, the new voices the voices that augur hope of change. We believe that the United Nations must continue its pressure upon South Africa moving step by step until right has triumphed. It is self-defeating to fire a single last dramatic salvo with only silence to follow. History holds no example of a pariah state that reformed itself in exile. The pariah is by definition an outlaw, free of restraint

My delegation has another grave concern about the wisdom of expelling South Africa. Even if this would help thwart the ugly crime of apartheid, expulsion would set a shattering precedent which could gravely damage the United Nations structure. It would bring into question one of the most fundamental concepts on which our Charter is based: the concept of a forum in which ideas and ideals are voiced and re-voiced along with conflicting views until elements of injustice and oppression are forced to give way to reason.

*

Press Release USUN-154 (74), Oct. 30, 1974, pp. 4-5; U.N. Doc. S/PV.1808, Oct. 30, 1974, pp. 26-30. The draft resolution, introduced by Kenya, Mauritania, and the United Republic of Cameroon on Oct. 29, 1974, is at U.N. Doc. S/11543, Oct. 29, 1974. On the discontinuance of contacts between the U.N. SecretaryGeneral and Namibia, see S.C. Res. 342 (1973), and the 1973 Digest, ch. 13, § 1, pp. 446-448.

Caribbean Development Bank

On June 6, 1974, Linwood Holton, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, wrote a letter to Senator Marlow W. Cook, Cochairman of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Puerto Rico, with respect to possible Puerto Rican membership in the Caribbean Development Bank. The Office of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico had requested that the Department of State take whatever steps were necessary to secure Puerto Rican membership in the Bank, which

specifically provides for membership for non-independent "territories." Mr. Holton said, in part:

After considerable study, we have tentatively reached the conclusion that it would be feasible for the United States Government to conclude, by Executive agreement, the necessary arrangements with the Caribbean Development Bank to permit Puerto Rico to accede to membership on its own behalf. Puerto Rico would, of course, assume all obligations and responsibilities that might arise from Bank membership, and the consent given by the United States Government would indicate that the government does not assume financial responsibility for any obligations incurred by Puerto Rico in becoming a member of the Bank. Consent would be further conditioned on prior State Department approval of the agreement to be concluded between Puerto Rico and the Bank. Our tentative conclusion that no specific congressional authorization is required is based in part upon the elimination of any financial obligation on the part of the Federal Government as a result of Puerto Rican accession.

Nevertheless, because of the interest of the Congress in this issue, we have told the Puerto Rican Government officials that we could not move forward until we had had ample opportunity to consult with interested members of the Congress and to receive their views.

To a certain extent, of course, Caribbean Development Bank membership is related to other possible instances of direct participation by the Government of Puerto Rico in matters affecting international relations and, as such, is appropriate for consideration by the Ad Hoc Advisory Group. However, given the intense interest of the Government of Puerto Rico in membership in the Bank, our belief that such membership would in fact be appropriate if the conditions mentioned above are met, and the major distinctions between Puerto Rican membership in this particular organization from others where either the United States is a member on its own behalf or membership is largely limited to sovereign states, we believe it would be unfortunate if further consideration of the Puerto Rican request is unnecessarily delayed.

.. we do not feel that concurrence with respect to membership in the Caribbean Development Bank would imply support for membership in any other international organization.

Dept. of State File No. P74 0052-2650.

*

Section 52 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-559; approved December 30, 1974) provides guidelines for Puerto Rican membership in the Caribbean Development Bank. Section 52 provides:

(a) The President may transmit to the Caribbean Development Bank an instrument stating that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has the authority to conclude an agreement of accession with such Bank and to assume rights and obligations pursuant to such

agreement. However, such agreement may only be concluded after it has been approved by the United States Secretary of State.

(b) The instrument transmitted by the President to the Caribbean Development Bank under subsection (a) shall state that the United States shall not assume any financial or other responsibility for the performance of any obligation incurred by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico pursuant to such agreement of accession or pursuant to any other aspect of its membership or participation in such Bank.

(c) Such agreement of accession shall provide that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may not receive from the Caribbean Development Bank any funds provided to the Bank by the United States.

United Nations

Representation

On April 30, 1974, the United Nations General Assembly, at its Sixth Special Session, passed Resolution 3200 (S-VI), approving the credentials of all Member State representatives to the special session except those of the representatives of South Africa. The resolution was adopted by 86-26-15. Prior to the vote, Ambassador Barbara White, Alternate U.S. Representative to the Sixth Special Session, made a statement in Plenary in opposition to the draft resolution. Ambassador White said, in part:

The United States opposes the proposal by the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic by which the General Assembly would reject the credentials of the Delegation of South Africa. We share the strong feelings of many other countries against the doctrine and practice of apartheid, but we do not believe that revulsion against apartheid should take the form of denying the validity of South Africa's credentials.

Until such time as the General Assembly changes its rules of procedure, rule 27 stands. And rule 27 treats questions concerning credentials as formal and procedural matters only; it requires merely that credentials be issued by the Head of State, Head of Government, or Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The Secretary-General has informed us, through the Credentials Committee, that the credentials are in order. No one has suggested that they fail in some way to comply with rule 27.

The Assembly has repeatedly denounced apartheid, not the least by means of resolutions adopted on reports of the Special Political Committee, the Special Committee on Apartheid and a number of other Assembly bodies. These, not the credentials process, are the appropriate forums for expressing such judgments.

We cannot share the view that the South African Delegation's credentials, having been issued by a Government elected by a minority of the inhabitants of South Africa, are invalid. There are a number of governments around the world whose representatives cannot fairly be said to represent the majority of the peoples living in their national territories, yet no one seriously suggests that their