still continue-to probe the facts of colonial history we had passed through. We continued-and still continue to remind successive generations of Americans about the circumstances of their birth into independence. We continued and still continue to re-define and reenlarge the meaning of self-determination, in an ever-widening are of freedom, moving from politics to the social structure, to the educational structure, to the economic structure, to our rights and duties in the family of nations.

Although in the early days of our independence there was always the temptation to blame our former colonial overlord for all our troubles; as time went on, we were able, more and more, to resist that temptation and to look forward rather than backward. We were forced to face the truths about ourselves-where we stood, where we wanted to go, and how to get there. And facing these truths, we learned how to work on concrete things of benefit to our own people.

For all these reasons, based on our own experiences, the United States delegation applauds the statesmen of the newly independent nations who forge new and mutually beneficial associations of equality with various nations, including those that formerly ruled them. We reserve our special applause for the increasing number of these statesmen who shun the ways of theatrical adventurism, who make enormously valuable practical contributions to the solutions of practical problems before the United Nations, and who set here, for their own people at home, the best of all examples about how to work in building a new nation.

Thus we in this Assembly Hall have much common ground. The sentiments of our friends in the emerging nations on this question of colonialism do not shock or offend the people of my country. On the contrary, we share and applaud them. And we feel privileged to live in an age when those sentiments of freedom are transforming the political map and inspiring the actions of men and women, in one third of the entire world, at a rate without precedent in human history.

The United Nations has fostered this liberating movement since its founding. The Charter requires administering Powers to treat colonial and dependent territories not as sources of profit to the governing Power but rather as a "sacred trust", and a means of progress for dependent peoples. This is made plain in Article 73 of Chapter XI of the Charter, called the "Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories". That Article declares that the administering Powers have a responsibility to the community of nations; that the interests of the indigenous populations come first; and that among those interests are progress toward self-government and free institutions and the realization of their "political aspirations"-which in most cases has meant separate independence. The same Article also makes clear that the pace and method of progress must take into account the "particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement".

In the fifteen years that the United Nations has been in existence, Article 73 has been put into effect with great speed and on a grand scale. Some forty countries, containing over 800 million people, have

attained independence since 1946. Nearly all are Members of the United Nations, with delegates in this Hall. In Africa alone, no less than twenty-two States have made this transition, until two-thirds of the whole area of Africa is free and independent. And still others will follow in the years just ahead.

Now this success has given a powerful impetus to the drive for independence and full self-government in other territories which are still dependent today, and which feel themselves to be part of the same great stream of history. It is natural and healthy that this should be so. The very presence in our midst of a greatly increased number of new nations, all free to express their views as they think right, has imparted to this question a new urgency, an urgency which received dramatic expression in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), adopted last year and containing the historic Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks.

Against this background, let me now consider the present situation as it appears to my Government, particularly with regard to the very large colonial territories remaining on the African continent.

There is first the issue of Portugal's African territories, an issue with which the General Assembly has been concerned for some years and which during the past year has focused on the situation in Angola. There is no doubt that the people of Angola and other Portuguese African territories are entitled to all the rights guaranteed them by the Charter, the right of unfettered opportunity to develop their full economic, political and cultural potentialities. The United States position on this issue is, I am sure, entirely clear to the Assembly. Last spring, in the Security Council, Ambassador Stevenson expressed the conviction of my Government, which remains firm and unchanged, that step-by-step reforms within Portuguese territories-and indeed an acceleration of such reforms-were imperative if the peoples under Portuguese administration were to advance politically, economically and socially toward full self-determination, which is their right. But my delegation will have more to say on this subject when we examine the situation in Angola.

There is next the problem of South West Africa, a problem which has been rendered more complicated by historical and juridical problems. But the fundamental issue is clear: the population of South West Africa must be given the opportunity to aspire to and achieve its own self-determination.

6

In this context, I think it is inescapable to mention the policy of apartheid in the Union of South Africa, even though that problem has been under debate elsewhere. We still believe, as our forefathers did at the founding of our nation, that Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed". And in South Africa the

consent of the vast majority counts for little. We believe that it is inadmissible that a group which makes up no more than a fifth of a country's population should hold all the effective power and relegate the majority, by reason of their race, to a perpetual subjection. Under the Charter, we are all dedicated to the eradication of this injustice, this gross infraction of human rights.

In Africa, for the most part, the transfer of power to Africans has been accomplished in areas where European minorities are very small. In such areas, the United Kingdom and France have been quick to respond to the "winds of change" and to transfer power to African leaders.

This creative record is, I am sure, an earnest of the sincerity of both these metropolitan Powers in tackling the much more difficult problem of bringing about self-determination in mixed communities such as Algeria or the Rhodesias. If progress here is taking longer, it is in part for the reason that the problem is infinitely more complex. In these cases, a long-dominant minority and a majority which does not enjoy all its legitimate rights and safeguards, must find a new basis for living together. The majority must learn to carry its share of the responsibilities of power. The privileged minority must help in that learning process, and must in return be assured of safeguards for minority rights. For no free society is possible except where the majority rule and minority rights are balanced and reconciled.

The historic metamorphosis of colonies into self-governing, multi. racial, democratic societies imposes on all concerned a most delicate and demanding task. It is a task which we hope and expect the Governments and peoples concerned will continue to pursue with all feasible speed.

I have mentioned some of the urgent and burning colonial issues in Africa. We pledge again that the United States will apply unremittingly its devotion, its energies, and its abilities to seek peaceful and constructive solutions, consonant with the ideals of the Charter, of the problems created by these issues.

Let me now state a general belief which animates the United States in all phases of this issue. We would rather see the leaders and peoples of Africa conquer the realities of independence, with all the exertion that this requires, with all of the institution-building that this requires, than see them satisfied with the hollow and sterile image of independence without the reality.

Here we must seek a delicate balance. The Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples states precisely that "inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence". But the key word is "pretext", an alleged reason which conceals or cloaks some other motive. And let no one cry "obstruction" if the building in good faith of these institutions takes time. To refuse to take the necessary time is to practice a cruel deception on ourselves and on all of the peoples involved. The tragic experience in the Congo has taught us this lesson so vividly that I hope that we will never have to be taught it again.

Here was a country which, after only limited preparations, had full political independence granted suddenly upon request, virtually thrust upon it-and saw that independence turn to chaos overnight. Surely every Member of the United Nations must take to heart the implications of this tragedy, and the duty of imparting to dependent peoples the skills and institutions which are prerequisites of viable freedom. The legacy of free institutions, honest, competent, and loyal civil servants, adequately developed trade and industry, an effective and wide-spread educational system, is among the most precious resources any newly emerged or emerging nations can have. Despite understandable impatience, the leaders of these nations should be prepared to insist on achieving them to the maximum attainable degree before embarking on the rough and dangerous waters of a world in turmoil. It is easy to shout "Ühuru", or freedom, in any language. But if a country is to be truly free, its people and its leaders must have the institutions and the knowledge to enable them wisely to choose year after year, through all the years ahead-to make the great sovereign choices which will determine their national destinies.

And such fateful choices must be made not only at the outset of a nation's independence, but in every succeeding year and decade of its national career. The power to make these choices is the most precious patrimony of every nation. A nation which is not free to make such choices for itself is, to that extent, not free at all.

It

For a nation to have such freedom, two things are necessary. must have in its own hands, instead of in alien hands, the right to decide. And no less vital-it must have among its people and among its leaders the knowledge and experience which alone confer the ability to decide.

This is no counsel of perfection. Every free nation runs the risk of making the wrong choice, but every nation also must have the knowledge and experience which at least give it a fair chance to choose wisely and well.

Only thus can the new nations have the strength to preserve their independence. The importance of this concept has been wisely and properly emphasized here by a number of delegates, notably by the Foreign Minister of Nigeria in introducing his far-sighted draft resolution."

Now, the question remains which most directly concerns us here in this Assembly: what can the United Nations do now to speed and guide the decolonizing process.

The nature of United Nations action must vary with the types of situations presented which, as we have seen, are radically different in different places. The Assembly's famous resolution 1514 (XV) adopted last December, called for immediate steps by the administering Powers toward ending colonial rule.

In many places this has presented little or no problem. Tanganyika to take but one example, was already far along the road, and will actually achieve independence next month. On the other hand, in the

Portuguese territories in Africa, the people's right to ultimate selfdetermination has not yet been recognized by the Government.

Then there are other cases, of which the Trust Territory of New Guinea is an example, where the Administering Authority-in this case, Australia-has fully accepted, both in law and in practice, its Charter responsibilities, but where tens of thousands of the people are not yet in touch with the outside world. They still have a long period of development ahead before they can hope to be a viable independent nation.

We of the United States believe that the United Nations has two quite different tasks in this whole field. Toward the Governments which, unfortunately, have been slow and unwilling to accept their responsibilities under the Charter, we believe that the right course is to appoint special committees to investigate the situation in the area, to consult with and persuade the governing Powers, to keep the General Assembly informed, to make specific recommendations, and to maintain on each of these situations the clearly focused judgement of world opinion. We are confident that this method will yield results in due time, though not as soon as many of us would wish.

Clearly, such a course would be inappropriate for the other cases in which the governing Power has accepted its responsibilities under the Charter and is working in good faith with the indigenous population to carry them out. When, for instance, a Government which administers a Non-Self-Governing Territory faithfully reports to the General Assembly, through the Committee on Information from NonSelf-Governing Territories, on the administration of an area, on social and economic, and even political, developments therein, we think it is scarcely appropriate that this situation should be treated by the United Nations as if it were a problem of colonial oppression.

The United States is associated with three territories that are not fully self-governing: the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa, with a total indigenous population of less than 100,000.

To the extent that the word "colonialism" means an unjust relationship continued against the wishes of the people of the territories in question, a relation of subjugation, oppression and exploitation, the term "colonialism" has no application whatsoever to the situations in these Territories.

However, we recognize that, although these Territories possess a large measure of self-government in the sense that they have their own legislative bodies, freely elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage, they are not fully self-governing within the meaning of that term as it is generally used at the United Nations. My Government has accordingly reported under Article 73 e of the Charter on these three Territories as "Non-Self-Governing Territories", even though— I might add-the term is somewhat resented by the elected leaders of the Territories who consider that they are self-governing. It further follows that these Territories, being at least technically non-self-gov. erning, fall within the scope of resolution 1514 (XV).

In accordance with our belief in the principle of self-determination, and in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV), I am glad to advise