credentials should likewise be rejected. Doing so in the case of South Africa is a dangerous precedent which tomorrow could be turned against not a few in this Assembly.

The specified procedure has nothing to do with approval or disapproval of the South African Government. The credentials process was never meant to deal with attitudes towards governments; hence acceptance of credentials expresses no view whatever with regard to a credentials-issuing government.

For these reasons, the United States will vote against the proposal to reject the credentials of the South African Delegation.

U.N. Doc. A/PV.2228, Apr. 30, 1974, pp. 21-22; Press Release USUN-42(74), Apr. 30, 1974. See also the Report of the Credentials Committee, U.N. Doc. A/9555, Apr. 29, 1974. Subsequent to the vote, Ambassador White made a further statement with respect to the credentials of the representatives of the Khmer Republic. She said, in part:

In view of what has been said by certain other delegations, the United States Delegation wishes to put on record its views with regard to the credentials of the Delegation of the Khmer Republic. I begin by noting that the Secretary-General has found the credentials submitted by the Khmer Delegation to be in order under rule 27, as is the case with the credentials submitted by delegations representing other Member States. Consequently, there is no basis whatever for the polemical attack on the propriety of those credentials that has been heard from this platform.

My Delegation had hoped that all delegations would avoid diverting this session from its urgent business, but others have done so by injecting extraneous political matters. I therefore now am compelled to stress that my Government considers the Government of the Khmer Republic to be the only legitimate governmental authority in Cambodia.

U.N. Doc. A/PV.2228, Apr. 30, 1974, p. 52; Press Release USUN-43 (74), Apr. 30, 1974.

Rule 27 of the General Assembly's Rules of Procedure provides:

The credentials of representatives and the names of members of a delegation shall be submitted to the Secretary-General if possible not less than one week before the opening of the session. The credentials shall be issued either by the Head of the State or Government or by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

On September 20, 1974, the U.N. General Assembly rejected the credentials of the representatives of South Africa by a vote of 98-23-14. The United States voted against the resolution (3206 (XXIX)). The General Assembly also called upon the Security Council to "review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa." (See supra, p. 29.)

With respect to the credentials question, Ambassador John A. Scali, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, said the following subsequent to the Assembly vote:

My Delegation finds the policy of apartheid an illegal and obnoxious violation of fundamental human rights. It is as contrary to that for which my government stands as it is to that for which the United Nations stands. We understand why many seek this opportunity

to assert their moral outrage at this heinous policy. For our part, however, we do not believe that the question of credentials was an appropriate one for that purpose. The purpose of evaluating the authenticity of the credentials submitted to the Secretary-General is clearly to ensure that the individuals representing states in this body have been authorized to do so by the government of the country they are here to represent. The policies of those governments are not a legitimate consideration in that context. There are other times and other contexts in which they may be, but what is unquestionably true is that here they are not.

No one can reasonably argue with the facts that South Africa is a Member of the United Nations; that the government which has sent representatives to this Assembly is indeed the government in power in that country; that an appropriate official of that country signed the necessary credentials documents; and that they were submitted in a proper, timely way.

Although we do not regard this as the appropriate item for expressing the Assembly's view on the policy of apartheid or the representative nature of the Government of South Africa-or of the governments of other Members which are not elected by universal free elections-our vote against this report does not diminish our opposition to these unfortunate practices.

U.N. Doc. A/PV.2248, Sept. 30, 1974, p. 106; Press Release USUN-121(74), Sept. 20, 1974. See also the Report of the Credentials Committee, U.N. Doc. A/9779, Sept. 28, 1974. The South African Delegation continued to speak and vote in the General Assembly.

On November 12, 1974, Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria, President of the United Nations General Assembly, ruled that the South African Delegation had no right to participate in the General Assembly or its committees during the 29th Assembly session. The ruling, challenged by the United States, was upheld by an Assembly vote of 91-22-19. It was the first time in U.N. history that such participation was denied a Member State of the United Nations. In a statement to the Assembly on November 12, Ambassador Scali said that the U.S. decision to challenge the ruling was made "because of the overriding importance of the issue, the fundamental rights of a Member State under the Charter of the United Nations." Mr. Scali continued:

There is also an obvious conflict, . . ., between your ruling and the legal opinion given to this Assembly on November 11, 1970, at the 25th Session. Further, there is a conflict between your ruling and the practice that the General Assembly has consistently followed in the four years since then, at the 25th, the 26th, the 27th and the 28th Sessions and at the 6th Special Session held in spring this year. In addition, as we all know, during this 29th Session, South Africa was allowed to vote without objection after the Assembly's decision on its credentials was made.

The legal opinion given at the 25th Session remains as valid today, in our view, as it was then. It affirms that under the Charter the Assembly may not deprive a member of any of the rights of membership. The Assembly may be master of its rules of procedure, but no majority, no matter how large, can ignore or change the clear provisions of the Charter in this way. We consider it to be a violation of the rules of procedure and of Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter for the Assembly to attempt to deny a Member State of the United Nations its right to participate in the Assembly, through this type of unprecedented action. Article 5 of the Charter expressly lays down rules by which a member may be suspended. Article 6 of the Charter specifically provides the process by which a member may be expelled. The Assembly is not empowered to deprive a member of the rights and privileges of membership other than in accordance with Articles 5, 6 and 19 of the Charter. In our view, none of these circumstances applies in this case.

At the 25th Session of this Assembly, the then Legal Counsel of the United Nations ruled:

"Article 5 of the Charter lays down the following requirements. for the suspension of a Member State from the rights and privileges of memership:

(a) Preventive or enforcement action has to be taken by the Security Council against the Member State concerned;

(b) The Security Council has to recommend to the General Assembly that the Member State concerned be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership; (c) The General Assembly has to act affirmatively on the foregoing recommendation by a two-thirds vote, in accordance with Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Charter, which lists 'the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership' as an 'important question.'

The participation in meetings of the General Assembly is quite clearly one of the important rights and privileges of membership. Suspension of this right through the rejection of credentials would not satisfy the foregoing requirements and would therefore be contrary to the Charter."

It is our view that nothing has transpired in the General Assembly or the Security Council to affect the validity of that ruling. Since the Security Council remains seized of the range of South African questions, there is all the more reason why the Assembly cannot properly seek to take action to deprive South Africa of its rights of membership. The effect of the resolution of September 30, 1974, on credentials has the same effect as resolutions of previous years.

... your action is taken in the context of the Assembly's action on the credentials item. The policy of a government is not a legitimate consideration in this context. Those policies may rightly be examined at other times and in other contexts, but not here. In the present case no one can reasonably argue with the technical propriety of the credentials of the South African Delegation. South Africa is not the

only Member State whose government is not chosen by free elections where all adults are entitled to vote.

In our view, we must not seek to change the membership regulations to convert this into an organization of like-minded governments. Were we to apply that criterion we should cease to be a universal institution and would become very different indeed.

Those facts and a respect for the Charter have led past Presidents of the General Assembly to rule that decisions involving the nonacceptance or rejection of South African credentials constitute an expression of international outrage at the heinous policy of apartheid. But each of those Presidents has also ruled that such decisions do not serve to deprive South Africa of its fundamental rights of membership-rights which include the right to take its seat in the General Assembly, to speak, to raise questions and make proposals, and to vote.

we consider that your ruling fails to take into account that law of the Charter, the existing legal opinion and the consistent series of applicable precedents..

Press Release USUN-167 (74), Nov. 12, 1974; U.N. Doc. A/PV.2281, Nov. 12, 1974, pp. 76-81. Mr. Bouteflika had noted that the 1970 ruling by Edvard Hambro, then Assembly President, had included the phrase "the amendment as it is worded at present would not seem to me to mean that the South African Delegation is unseated or cannot continue to sit in this Assembly." Mr. Bouteflika said that the Hambro ruling "did not mean that if the amendment had been worded in some other way it might not have had different consequences for the legal position of the South African Delegation in this Assembly." He also said:

Now, year after year the General Assembly has decided, by ever-larger majorities, not to recognize the credentials of the South African Delegation, and during this session the Credentials Committee itself took the initiative of rejecting those credentials.

It would therefore be a betrayal of the clearly and repeatedly expressed will of the General Assembly to understand this to mean that it was merely a procedural method of expressing its rejection of the policy of apartheid. On the basis of the consistency with which the General Assembly has regularly refused to accept the credentials of the Delegation of South Africa, one may legitimately infer that the General Assembly would in the same way reject the credentials of any other delegation authorized by the Government of the Republic of South Africa to represent it, which is tantamount to saying in explicit terms that the General Assembly refuses to allow the Delegation of South Africa to participate in its work.

Thus it is, as President of the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly, that I interpret the decision of the General Assembly, leaving open the question of the status of the Republic of South Africa as a member of the United Nations which, as we all know, is a matter requiring a recommendation from the Security Council. My interpretation refers exclusively to the position of the Delegation of South Africa within the strict framework of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. That is my belief.

(U.N. Doc. A/PV.2281, Nov. 12, 1974, pp. 72-76.)

The Report of the Credentials Committee (U.N. Doc. A/9779, Sept. 28, 1974), accepted by the General Assembly on Sept. 20, 1974, includes the statement that the Committee "Accepts those credentials of representatives of Member States to the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly that have already been sub

mitted with the exception of the credentials of the representatives of South Africa," (at p. 4 of the Report). In 1970 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 2636 (XXV) approving the Report of the Credentials Committee "except with regard to the credentials of the representatives of the Government of South Africa." The phrase relating to South Africa's credentials was proposed as an amendment by ten African States. Mr. Hambro offered his interpretation just prior to the vote on the amendment, which was approved by 60-42-12 on Nov. 13, 1970.

On November 27 and 29, 1974, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 3238 (XXIX) on the issue of Cambodian representation in the United Nations. The resolution calls upon the powers "which had been influencing the two parties to the conflict to use their good offices for conciliation" between the two contending parties, i.e., Prince Sihanouk and the Government of Lon Nol. The resolution also requests the Secretary-General to lend "appropriate assistance" to the two parties and postpones any further action pending examination of the Secretary-General's report. The resolution was adopted 56-54-24. An alternative draft resolution (U.N. Doc. A/L. 733, October 1, 1974), which was not brought to a vote, would have recognized the Royal Government of National Union of Cambodia, presided over by Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the Head of State," as the "sole lawful representative" of Cambodia and would have expelled "the Lon Nol group" from its seat at the United Nations.

On November 27, 1974, Ambassador Scali made a statement to the General Assembly on the Cambodia question. The following are excerpts:

The issue presented to this Assembly by the two resolutions before us is in essence very simple. One resolution proposes negotiations without pre-conditions for a peaceful settlement of the tragic conflict in Cambodia. The other demands a one-sided solution and offers only the prospect of continued war, and more suffering by the Cambodian people. Which of these alternatives is consistent with the purposes for which this organization was founded? Which of these paths does our Charter stake out as the road to justice and accepted international law?

We have heard from some speakers a claim that the opposition forces in Cambodia control 90 percent of that country's territory and 80 percent of its people. If this is true, then why, we must wonder, has the opposition no capital, no government, no machinery, no parliament in fact, none of the normal attributes of a government? Why, indeed, has their nominal Chief of State taken refuge in a foreign capital? Why does he not go home to receive the acclaim of the people who, we are told, are eagerly awaiting his return? This seems to me a reasonable and fundamental question.

*