ADMINISTRATION OF THE MANDATED TERRITORY OF SOUTH-WEST AFRICA BY SOUTH AFRICA VIII-56 "MY DELEGATION BELIEVES ... IN THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH-WEST AFRICA TO SELF-DETERMINATION": Statement Made by the U.S. Representative (Yates) in Committee IV of the U.N. General Assembly, October 30, 1963 54 By extending the apartheid laws to South-West Africa the mandatory power is, in the view of my Government, clearly delinquent in its obligations to the international community and to the population of South-West Africa. These obligations are set forth explicitly in article 2 of the mandate,55 which states that South Africa "shall promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants of the territory." Mr. Chairman, my delegation believes not only that there is neither legal nor political basis for the apartheid laws in South Africa; there is also no moral basis for such laws anywhere in the world, let alone in a territory such as South-West Africa, which has a clear international character, which was given to the Government of South Africa as "a sacred trust of civilization." My delegation believes, further, in the right of the people of SouthWest Africa to self-determination as promptly as the expression may be freely and responsibly exercised. We would be strongly opposed to any division of the Territory of South-West Africa without the freely expressed consent of its people. We would be strongly opposed to the annexation by any state of all or any part of the territory without such consent. Mr. Chairman, my delegation is encouraged that there are voices of white people still in South Africa calling for a restoration of reason. In this connection it was refreshing and reassuring to my delegation to read a recent article which appeared in the publication Forum, a South African periodical, which urged the application of reason and realism by the people of South Africa to the racial situation. The author of this article reminded the white South Africans that they in fact are the only actors in this looming tragedy who may have some ability to avert the onset of violence. In this South African article the author suggests the following steps by white South Africans: Primarily they can hold fast to the principles of western civilization. They can denounce at every opportunity the philosophy, the policy and the administrative practices of apartheid. They can oppose it and frustrate it by all legal means. They can begin their crusade on behalf of human rights in our country. Theirs is the most worthwhile crusade of all-a crusade against unnecessary dying. U.S.-U.N. press release 4281 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, Dec. 16, 1963, pp. 946–948). "Dec. 17, 1920; text in U.N. doc. A/1901, pp. 9–10. The article is important for two reasons: First, it affirms what we tend to forget too easily: that in the white community of South Africa there are people who are revolted by the Government's policies of apartheid, who are not afraid to say so, and who call upon the Government to change its policies. And secondly, the article points up the futility of bloodshed and the need for reason to rule, rather than passion and emotion. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that every member of this committee has watched with careful interest the progress of the case brought in the International Court of Justice against South Africa by Liberia and Ethiopia.56 As we all know, shortly after the adjournment of this committee's deliberations last year, the International Court of Justice decided that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the dispute. The Government of South Africa has, quite properly, accepted the Court's decision, inasmuch as it has maintained its participation in the case. This is all to the good. As we have stated in the past, we believe the General Assembly should take no action which would affect the status of the mandate during the Court's proceedings. My delegation believes that the members of the United Nations should place and that most members do place great importance on the rule of law in the conduct of international affairs. It is generally recognized that in this case it is of the highest importance that any action taken by the United Nations rest upon a solid, legal foundation commensurate with the obligations of the world toward the peoples of the mandated territory. Only in this way, we believe, can and should the United Nations hope to mobilize the support needed to carry out its objective. In this connection I wish to emphasize the importance which the United States attaches to member states of the United Nations respecting the judgments of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Article 94 of the charter 57 provides that "Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party." The importance of this concept is further emphasized by subsequent provisions of this article for giving effect to decisions of the Court. We would expect, therefore, compliance with the judgment of the Court. If the judicial proceedings now in train before the Court are one manifestation of the international community's continuing concern over the problem of South-West Africa, the concern has also been expressed in the request of the General Assembly and of the Committee of 24 to establish a U.N. presence in the territory.58 My Government attaches particular importance to the recommendation made by the Assembly last year for establishing an effective U.N. presence in the territory.50 We are particularly interested not only See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 640-642. 157 Text in American Foreign Policy, 1950-1955: Basic Documents, vol. I, pp. 134-161. 68 See footnote 63, doc. VIII-57, infra. 59 See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1962, pp. 940-941. in the possibility but in the need for a U.N. technical assistance representative in South-West Africa, and I must frankly express our regret and keen disappointment that the Government of South Africa has not as yet given its consent to such a representative. Mr. Chairman, I believe members should know that during the course of this year my Government pressed this objective with the South African Government. On several occasions we have at a high level outlined the advantages accruing to the peoples of South-West Africa and also to South Africa by such a process, and we have urged the South African Government to accept a U.N. presence. It is our understanding from these representations that the South African Government has not yet reached a final decision on this question, and we hope the South African Government would indicate its willingness to enter into conversations with the Secretary-General on this question. We have pointed out before the particular advantages that U.N. technical assistance can offer the peoples of South-West Africa and to the Government of South Africa in fulfilling the spirit of the mandate. The Government of South Africa has argued that it is itself in a position to provide the technical assistance programs needed, but, Mr. Chairman, no nation in this day can argue that it is so self-sufficient in knowledge or skill that it cannot benefit from the mobilized resources of the international community. I think the unfortunate condition of the great majority of the population of South-West Africa is urgent testimony of this fact. Once again we strongly urge the Government of South Africa to reconsider its position on this question. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago the United Nations established a special training program for South-West Africans.60 A modest budget was allocated for this program, and member states have been supplying scholarships for both secondary and higher education. My Government believes there is no better way to prepare a people for the exercise of self-determination or to give practical expression to concern for their well-being than to raise the level of education. To this end my own Government has been pleased to contribute to this program by the provision of 10 scholarships to South-West Africans, and we are reviewing our contribution to see what additional assistance we can furnish. In reading the second report of the Secretary-General on this subject, I would call attention of the members of this committee to the emphasis it places on the need for secondary school training. I think we all might give high priority to this need. I also note and with regret-that many of those seeking to take advantage of the scholarships offered have been unable to obtain the necessary travel documents from the South African Government. This lack of cooperation by the South African Government has not prevented my Government from assisting in the educational development of the mandated territory, since we have made our scholarships avail "Reference is to U.N. General Assembly Res. 1705 (XVI), Dec. 19, 1961; text in U.N. General Assembly Official Records, Sixteenth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/5100), pp. 41-42. "U.N. doc. A/5526 and Add. 1. able to South-West Africans outside the territory as well as those residing there and we shall continue to do so. I urge that Government to reconsider its position on this matter. A change here would be a small matter but one which would be tremendously encouraging to the people of South-West Africa and to all of us who are working for an eventual peaceful solution to the problem. Mr. Chairman, the international community is and must be urgently concerned with the future of South-West Africa and its peoples. I repeat: The United States believes firmly that the obligations of the mandate assumed by the Government of South Africa should be fulfilled. We believe firmly that the peoples of South-West Africa must have the opportunity freely to exercise their right of self-determination. Neither the United States nor the United Nations can rest until these goals are achieved. VIII-57 QUESTION OF SOUTH-WEST AFRICA: Resolution 1899 (XVIII), Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, November 13, 1963 6 62 The General Assembly, Having considered the question of South West Africa, Having considered the report on this question submitted by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,6 62 U.N. General Assembly Official Records, Eighteenth Session, Supplement No. 15 (A/5515), pp. 46-47. This resolution was adopted by a vote of 82 to 6 (France, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, U.K., U.S.), with 16 abstentions. The United States made attempts to change the text of the resolution in Committee IV by offering several amendments, all of which were defeated. In particular, the United States objected to the language calling the situation in South-West Africa "a serious threat to international peace and security", preferring it be termed "a dangerous source of international friction." The United States also tried to delete the language calling for an oil embargo, in line with Mr. Stevenson's statement that present application of sanctions would be "both bad law and bad policy." (See ante, doc. VIII-48.) See U.N. doc. A/5446/Rev. 1, ch. IV. The Special Committee, established in 1961 as a Committee of 17 nations (see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1961, pp. 171-172) and enlarged in 1962 to a membership of 24, considered the question of South-West Africa from Apr. 4 to May 10, 1963. At the conclusion of its hearings, the Committee of 24 adopted, by a vote of 23 (including the U.S.) to 0, with 1 abstention (U.K.), a resolution (U.N. doc. S/5322) which, among other things, condemned South Africa's refusal to cooperate with the Committee and the United Nations, reaffirmed the right of the people of SouthWest Africa to national independence, and recommended that the General Assembly consider any attempt by South Africa to annex South-West Africa as an act of aggression. The Special Committee also requested the U.N. Secretary-General to continue his efforts to achieve the appointment of a U.N. Technical Assistance Resident Representative in South-West Africa and the establishment there of an effective U.N. presence. Reservations were expressed by some member states of the Committee of 24, including the United States, on certain aspects of the resolution, such as the provision defining any effort to annex the Territory as an act of aggression, but all member states except the United Kingdom voted for the resolution as a whole. Having heard the statements of the petitioners, Bearing in mind the principles of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, set forth in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,64 Recalling all its resolutions relating to South West Africa, especially resolutions 1702 (XVI) of 19 December 1961 65 and 1805 (XVII) of 14 December 1962,66 Considering the decisions relating to decolonization adopted at the Summit Conference of Independent African States, held in May 1963 at Addis Ababa, particularly those concerning South West Africa,67 Deeply regretting that the Government of the Republic of South Africa has taken no steps to implement the resolutions of the General Assembly on South West Africa and, in particular, that it has refused to allow a United Nations technical assistance resident representative to be stationed in that Territory, Further deploring the refusal of the Government of South Africa to co-operate with the Special Committee, which has prevented the Committee from discharging the tasks assigned to it by General Assembly resolution 1805 (XVII), Noting with deep concern the continuing deterioration of the situation in South West Africa resulting from the intensification of the policies of apartheid, which has been unanimously censured and categorically condemned by the General Assembly in resolutions 1761 (XVII) of 6 November 1962 68 and 1881 (XVIII) of 11 October 1963,69 Observing with profound regret that the Government of South Africa has persistently and deliberately failed to fulfil its international obligations in the administration of the Mandated Territory of South West Africa, Considering that any attempt by the Government of South Africa to annex a part or the whole of the Territory of South West Africa would be contrary to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 11 July 1950 70 and would constitute a violation of that Government's obligations under the Mandate and of its other international obligations, Considering further that the continuing support received by the Government of South Africa from certain Powers or certain financial groups encourages it to persist in its attitude and enables it to do so, Deeply concerned at the present critical situation in South West Africa, the continuation of which constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security, Taking into consideration the special responsibilities of the United Nations with regard to the Territory of South West Africa, Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 110-111. 06 Text ibid., 1962, pp. 940-941. 67 See post, doc. VIII-61. Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1962, pp. 931-933. 00 Ante, doc. VIII-52. ΤΟ International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 128. [Footnote in source text.] |