It is both useful and desirable, of course, for the committee to explore matters which can give an insight into the welfare of the inhabitants and the general material progress of a mandated territory. My delegation fully supports this undertaking. I would remind the committee that the United States in Committee IV had suggested sharpening the focus of this paragraph so as to direct the study to the effect of international investments "on the welfare of the people of South West Africa." This, we hoped, would relate the study specifically to the responsibility of this committee for dependent peoples.

In any event, the General Assembly's instructions, as stated, were ignored; the economic and political influence of international companies are not assessed. In fact, there is little reflection of any process of careful analysis in the subcommittee's conclusions and recommendations. The subcommittee does not evaluate the activities of industry but strongly condemns the activities of international companies. The subcommittee then calls upon South Africa unilaterally to abrogate contractual agreements with international companies for reasons unspecified. It condemns in general terms the granting of concessions, again unsupported by any semblance of the analysis requested by the General Assembly. Finally, without specifying reasons, it calls upon my Government to interfere with the lawful international activities of lawful American business enterprises. Without pursuing more specific instances, Mr. Chairman, I must say that my delegation fails to see what purpose would be served by sending such a collection of unfounded condemnations and unjustified requests to the General Assembly. Such recommendations are not within the scope of the work this committee was requested to perform, nor are they consistent with the serious responsibility placed upon the committee when it was formed.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must treat briefly the question of the accuracy of some of the premises and assumptions of fact which are implicit, or present by innuendo, in the recommendations. The cruder of these recommendations clearly hawk the economic theories of a minority of this committee. They do not proceed from an assessment of facts.

Mr. Chairman, as the committee is aware, the General Assembly enabling resolution requested the Special Committee to obtain the assistance of the Secretary-General. The Secretariat, accordingly, was asked to prepare a working paper on the activities of the mining and other industries in South-West Africa. It did so, and the working paper stated that the Secretariat had obtained information from a number of independent sources. The working paper was then made available to the subcommittee to facilitate its work.

The working paper, much of which has been incorporated as part two of the subcommittee report, was notable for the thoroughness and balance of the facts it assembled. We see, for example, that there are extensive sections on labor legislation and practices, mining legislation, and the various laws of the territory under which foreign com

panies operate. There is an interesting comprehensive description of the various international companies ownership, capitalization, their role in the economy of South-West Africa-including taxes paid and labor employed. The economic and industrial pattern which emerges would have been useful to the study of the subcommittee in making its final assessment. But it appears that the facts have been, for the most part, ignored rather than construed in reaching the report's fanciful conclusions and recommendations. Let me cite two or three examples.

1. Paragraph (b) of the subcommittee's recommendations condemns foreign companies for acting "for the sole benefit of these companies." Part two of the report notes, however, that not only does 75 percent of all territorial revenues derived from income tax come from mining, fishing, and related companies (15.3 million rand" in 1962-63) but local expenditures of these companies in wages and purchases rose from R1.6 million in 1938 to R20.3 million in 1960 and R28.3 million in 1963. Yet these substantial contributions to the local economy are disregarded. That same paragraph states that the activities of international companies "represent one of the major obstacles in the way of the country to independence." I wonder if the experiences of a number of members of this committee would allow them to support this sort of generality. Many enterprises established during the colonial era have welcomed independence and continued to contribute to the economies of the emerging independent countries.

2. Paragraph (c) states the Government of South Africa's support of and participation in international companies' activities in SouthWest Africa "run counter to the provisions of the Mandate." I challenge this contention. The participation of foreign interests in the development of the territory is contrary neither to the terms nor the spirit of the mandate. I find no explanation in this report which indicates how the subcommittee came to its conclusion. This is a typical example of the subcommittee's approach. Part two of the report, based on the Secretariat paper, analyzes the activities of foreign companies within the strict legislative and administrative limitations imposed on them by the administering power. The conclusions and recommendations, however, dismiss these limitations and seem irrationally determined to attack foreign investment as solely responsible for the inequities described in part two.

3. Paragraph (e) states that "the policies of apartheid in South West Africa. . . among others, create favourable conditions for . . . international companies." The Secretariat study notes that apartheid labor laws are responsible for the cleavage of African and white labor along unskilled and skilled, high- and low-paid employment lines. Nowhere, however, are any particular advantages accruing to an industrial employer from a large, uneducated, unskilled labor force

" One rand equals $1.40 U.S.

set forth. The chairman of the Anglo-American Corporation in fact has indicated the contrary to be true. He points out that low productivity resulting from such a labor force and the consequently low wages are not only undesirable in themselves but undesirable for effective industrialization. In describing company training programs to overcome this situation, he notes that "attempts to remedy this situation are, of course, made more difficult by the legislative color bars which are imposed on industry in South Africa." The South-West African labor legislation described in the Secretariat report is substantially the same as that in South Africa. I note that the chairman and president of American Metal Climax has made similar comments in his company report: "It is to be hoped that the governmental authorities will now be prepared to sponsor or permit substantial modernization of the standards and conditions of employment and life of the African workers in the Territory."

In closing, Mr. Chairman, my delegation must record its inability to understand the request of the Special Committee that the United States of America put an end to its support of the Republic of South Africa. The position of my Government on the issue of apartheid is quite clear, and the implication behind this recommendation is contradicted in my Government's record. Such allegations also jeopardize the serious purposes of this committee. Political progress in South Africa is one of our most pressing concerns here, and my Government continues its willing support for constructive action. Engaging in politically inspired invective can only obstruct the path to this goal.

For all these reasons-for the unsuitability of the subcommittee's conclusions and recommendations in light of the General Assembly's directive to the subcommittee and for rank inaccuracy and contentiousness of statement-my delegation opposes the adoption of the subcommittee's conclusions and recommendations in their present form. We would hope further that the impropriety of sending such a report to the General Assembly will be obvious to the Special Committee and that it will act accordingly."5

75 On Nov. 10 the Special Committee adopted the report by a vote of 16 to 4 (including the U.S.), with 4 abstentions. The recommendations of the subcommittee appended to the report were adopted by a separate vote of 16 to 6 (including the U.S.), with 2 abstentions. The text of the report is contained in U.N. doc. A/5840.

G. Status and Pending Independence of Trust Territories and Other Dependencies in Africa

[See also ante, docs. 11-44-45]

BASUTOLAND, BECHUANALAND, AND SWAZILAND

Document VIII-54

The Territorial Integrity of Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland: RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF HEADS OF STATE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE OAU, CAIRO, JULY 21, 1964 1

1

The Assembly of Heads of State and Government in its First Ordinary Session in Cairo, U.A.R., from 17 to 21 July 1964,

Having examined the likely situation that would face Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland on attainment of independence,

Noting that the Government of the United Kingdom has agreed to grant independence in the immediate future to these territories,"

Noting further Resolution 1954 (XVIII) of the General Assembly of the United Nations solemnly warning the "Government of the Republic of South Africa that any attempt to annex or encroach upon the territorial integrity of these three Territories shall be considered an act of aggression","

1. Requests the Member States of OAU in consultation with the authorities of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland to take the necessary steps so as to secure a guarantee by the United Nations for the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of these territories; and

2. Authorizes in particular the African Group at the United Nations to take necessary measures, in consultation with the Committee of Liberation and the nationalist movements in these territories, to bring the question of guarantee before the Security Council at the appropriate time.*

1 OAU doc. AHG/Res. 12(I); text as printed in Organization of African Unity, Provisional Secretariat, Resolutions, etc., p. 48.

A summary of recent constitutional developments in the territories is contained in Yearbook of the United Nations, 1964, pp. 417-418.

* Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1963, pp. 713–714.

This question did not come before the Security Council during 1964. For discussion of the three territories in the Committee of 24 (see footnote 62 to doc. VIII-52, ante) and the text of a resolution adopted therein, see U.N. doc. A/5800/Rev. 1, Ch. VIII.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Document VIII-55

The Question of Southern Rhodesia: RESOLUTION ADOPTED 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, MARCH 23, 1964 5

Having considered the question of Southern Rhodesia,

Taking note of the reports of the Secretary-General [A/5664 and A/AC.109/ 57],

Having heard the statement of the Administering Power,

Bearing in mind the objectives of resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960," Recalling General Assembly resolution 1747 (XVI) of 28 June 1962,7 1760 (XVII) of 31 October 1962,8 1883 (XVIII) of 14 October 1963, 1889 (XVIII) of 6 November 1963 10 and 1956 (XVIII) of 11 December 1963,"

11

Taking into account the recommendations made by the Heads of African States and Governments on Southern Rhodesia during the Summit Conference held in Addis Ababa in May 1963 12 and recently re-affirmed by the Conference of their Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Lagos, from 24 to 29 February 1964,"

Considering that the interests of the African majority in Southern Rhodesia are paramount and that their representatives should fully participate in any decisions or consultations affecting the future of the Territory,

Deploring the transfer by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, contrary to General Assembly resolution 1883 (XVIII), of armed forces and aircraft to the settler minority government of Southern Rhodesia,"

Deeply concerned with the constant deterioration of the situation in Southern Rhodesia which constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. Being aware of the threat of a unilateral declaration of independence by the minority settler government,

1. Deplores the continued refusal of the Government of the United Kingdom to implement General Assembly and Special Committee resolutions on the question of Southern Rhodesia;

2. Urges the Government of the United Kingdom to take immediately the necessary steps to implement resolution 1514 (XV) as it has been invited to do so by General Assembly resolution 1747 (XVI), 1760 (XVII), 1883 (XVIII), 1889 (XVIII) and 1956 (XVIII);

3. Once more invites the Government of the United Kingdom to hold without delay a constitutional conference in which representatives of all political parties of the Territory will take part with a view to making constitutional arrangements for independence on the basis of universal adult suffrage, including the fixing of the earliest date for independence;

"U.N. doc. A/AC.109/61. This resolution was adopted by a vote of 18 to 0, with 5 abstentions (including the U.S.). The United Kingdom did not participate in the voting. The United States abstained because it did not feel that the situation in the territory could be described as a "serious threat to peace and security." and because it felt the language of the resolution was unduly harsh on the U.K. in view of the fact that Southern Rhodesia was a territory with internal self-government.

0 Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 110-111. 7 Text ibid., 1962, pp. 977-978.

8 Text ibid., pp. 982–983.

9 Text ibid., 1963, pp. 719–720.

10 Text ibid., pp. 720-721.

" Text ibid., pp. 164-166.

19 See ibid., p. 711.

13 U.N. doc. A/AC.109/59.

14 See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1963, p. 716, footnote 19.