D. The Union of South Africa, and South-West Africa

"CONTINUED REFUSAL OF THE UNION [OF SOUTH AFRICA] GOVERNMENT TO COOPERATE WITH [THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY] COMMITTEE ON SOUTH-WEST AFRICA": Preliminary Report of the Committee on South-West Africa on the Implementation of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1568 (XV), March 3, 1961 1

1

434. "OUR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS TO ACHIEVE SOME TANGIBLE IMPROVEMENT IN THE SITUATION OF THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH-WEST AFRICA ... AND TO PRESERVE THE PRESTIGE AND AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS": Statement Made by the U.S. Representative (Bingham) in Committee IV of the U.N. General Assembly, March 13, 1961 (Excerpt) 2

We do have before us the report of the distinguished Committee on South-West Africa,3 presented by its most learned and able chairman. As that report indicates, the Union of South Africa, in characteristic disregard of the decisions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, has declined to permit the Committee on South-West Africa to visit the mandated territory.

In attempted justification of its refusal, the Union presented the argument that the matter was sub judice in the International Court of Justice. Not only do we disagree with this argument on its merits, but we find it especially unconvincing coming from the Union of South Africa, which has ignored or rejected the prior decisions of the International Court of Justice and which has given no assurance that it will accept the decisions of that august Court in the contentious proceeding that has now been brought by the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia. I should like, with all due respect, to ask the representative of the Union of South Africa this question: Will the Union, to establish

1 U.N. doc. A/4705. The Committee on South-West Africa was established by U.N. General Assembly Res. 749 (VIII), approved Nov. 28, 1953; text in U.N. General Assembly Official Records, Eighth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/2630), pp. 26-28. The U.N. General Assembly approved the nomination of the original membership of the committee, Dec. 3, 1953; see ibid., p. 27 and U.N. doc. A/PV. 467. The committee for the year 1961 was composed of Representatives of the following states: Brazil, Denmark, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Ireland, the Philippines, the United Arab Republic, and Uruguay. For the text of U.N. General Assembly Res. 1568 (XV) of Dec. 18, 1960, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 642-643.

'U.S.-U.N. press release 3666 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, Apr. 17, 1961, pp. 569-571).

Cited as an unnumbered title, supra.

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 640-642.

its sincerity in putting forward the sub judice argument, assure the members of the United Nations that it will abide by the decisions of the International Court of Justice when they are rendered after due consideration in the present proceeding? I wish that I could hope for an affirmative answer.

Mr. Chairman, my delegation regrets that the Union of South Africa did not see fit to permit the Committee on South-West Africa to visit the Territory. This would have been an excellent opportunity for the Union Government to demonstrate its willingness to cooperate with the sincere and protracted efforts of the United Nations to find a solution consistent with the terms of the charter and of the mandate. We can only conclude from its noncooperation that the Union did not want this committee or the General Assembly to have before it the information which the Committee on South-West Africa would have obtained and would have brought back to lay before us. Mr. Chairman, I do not have at this time any draft resolution to submit, nor am I prepared to comment on any of the suggestions which have been offered for possible approval by this committee." As I began by saying, the rocklike refusal of the Union of South Africa to accept in any slightest degree the repeated expressions of opinion by the world community, as represented by the United Nations, has made this problem an extraordinarily difficult and intractable one. I would merely like to express the hope that the members of this committee, in considering the various kinds of action which the committee might recommend to the General Assembly, would keep constantly in mind that our primary objective is to achieve some tangible improvement in the situation of the people of SouthWest Africa and that an important secondary objective is to preserve the prestige and authority of the United Nations. Let us be careful, therefore, to avoid the temptation of making recommendations which are impractical and cannot conceivably be carried out, or which, even if carried out, will not contribute to an improvement of the situation or may even be harmful to our basic objectives. It would be extremely unfortunate, for example, if this committee were to take any action endangering the existence of the mandate, upon which the United Nations position in this matter so largely depends. Likewise we must be careful not to do anything to jeopardize the success of the contentious action brought in the International Court of Justice by Ethiopia and Liberia. As indicated by my Government's support of General Assembly Resolution 1565 last fall, we believe that this proceeding is of great importance and that, in instituting it, the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia have performed a signal service on behalf of all peoples who believe in the essential dignity of man, regardless of race, color, or creed.

By urging that we approach our task realistically and practically. I certainly do not mean to suggest that we should become discouraged

For reports of Committee IV see U.N. docs. A/4643, A/4709, and A/4721; see also post, docs. 435 and 439.

7

6 Text in U.N. doc. A/1901, pp. 9-10.

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 636–640.

and throw up our hands on this problem. To do so would be to betray the interests and aspirations of great numbers of human beings within the Territory and to betray the ideals of the United Nations itself.

On the contrary we must persevere in our efforts to find a solution or at least to find the beginning of a way that may lead to a solution. If we do so with determination, it seems to me inconceivable that the Government of the Union of South Africa should be able indefinitely to resist the moral pressure of world opinion as it may be brought to bear through the medium of this great forum.

WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA FROM THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH UPON BECOMING A REPUBLIC, MAY 31, 1961: Communiqué Issued at London by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, March 15, 1961 s

435. APPEAL FOR MEASURES TO INFLUENCE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA TO FULFILL ITS MANDATE IN SOUTH-WEST AFRICA: Resolution 1593 (XV), Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, March 16, 1961 °

9

The General Assembly,

Recalling the many resolutions adopted, since its first session, on the question of South West Africa, and especially resolution 1568 (XV) of 18 December 1960,10

Noting with concern that up to the present time the Government of the Union of South Africa has ignored those resolutions and has, instead, adopted an attitude contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Noting with special concern the refusal of the Mandatory Power to implement resolution 1568 (XV),

Likewise noting with concern the continued acts whereby, since 1950, the Government of the Union of South Africa has attempted to bring about the assimilation of the Territory of South West Africa, and in particular the so-called referendum of 5 October 1960 in which only the "European" inhabitants of the Territory were permitted to take part,

8 World Events-The Annual Register of the Year 1961, p. 516. Cyprus, Ghana, and Pakistan were represented by their Presidents; Australia, Canada, Ceylon, India, the Federation of Malaya, New Zealand, Nigeria, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, South Africa, and the United Kingdom were represented by their Prime Ministers.

U.N. General Assembly Official Records, Fifteenth Session, Supplement No. 16A (A/4684/Add.1), p. 7. This resolution, sponsored by the Representatives of Mexico and Venezuela, was adopted by a vote of 68 (including the U.S.) to 0, with 12 abstentions.

10 Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 642–643.

Considering that the conduct of the Government of the Union of South Africa constitutes a challenge to the authority of the United Nations,

Considering that attempts at the assimilation of the Mandated Territory of South West Africa, culminating in the so-called referendum of 5 October 1960, are totally unacceptable as having no moral or legal basis and being repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Mandate,11

Appeals to those Members of the United Nations which have particularly close and continuous relations with the Government of the Union of South Africa to bring, as a matter of urgency, all their influence to bear on that Government with a view to ensuring that it shall adjust its conduct to its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and shall give effect to the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly.

436. UNITED STATES VIEWS ON THE QUESTION OF THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE OF INDIAN AND INDOPAKISTAN ORIGIN IN THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA: Statement Made by the U.S. Representative (Plimpton) in the Special Political Committee of the U.N. General Assembly, March 22, 1961 (Excerpts)12

Once again the Special Political Committee is considering the question of the treatment of people of Indian and Indo-Pakistan origin, in the Union of South Africa.

The Union of South Africa has taken the position that direct negotiations would prejudice its position; that the matter is essentially within its domestic jurisdiction; and that, therefore, under Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, the United Nations is not authorized to intervene. We, for our part, as preceding United States representatives have said, do not believe that discussion infringes the limits set by such Article 2, paragraph 7. In the face of this impasse that has persisted almost since the founding of the United Nations, what can the United Nations usefully do toward resolving this conflict of interests?

One of my predecessors, in 1957, suggested that there were two kinds of contributions which the General Assembly could make to such a problem:

It can, through discussions, and sometimes the adoption of an appropriate resolution, make the community of nations freshly aware of the guiding principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, and can give new encourage ment to the practicing of these principles. The Assembly can also urge individual nations, where there is a dispute outstanding between them, to try to resolve their differences by discussing them and agreeing to a mutually acceptable settlement.

"Text in U.N. doc. A/1901, pp. 9-10.

12 U.S.-U.N. press release 3673.

Unfortunately, neither course seems to have helped, and, what is even more discouraging, the plight of the people of Indian and IndoPakistan origin in the Union of South Africa remains unrelieved and. unchanged.

One thing, however, has not remained unchanged, and that is the world's attitude toward racial discrimination. Steadily, surely, the world is realizing, not only that all men are created equal, but that all men should be treated as equal. To this high principle, the United Nations and all its members should steadfastly be devoted, and to the practice of that high principle all states should determinedly bend their sternest efforts.

May not this increasing awareness of the injustice of the inequality, this new climate of intolerance of intolerance, lead toward a solution of this problem that has been so long before us?

May not we hope that, responding to this changing climate, the Union of South Africa, of its own free will, will take steps to implement the recommendations of the United Nations General Assembly on the treatment of people of Indian and Indo-Pakistan origin.

Surely negotiation with friendly states, reserving the Union's juridical positions as to the interpretation of the Charter, would in no way prejudice those positions.

I would like to repeat, in this connection, the suggestion made by my delegation at the last session-the suggestion that normal diplomatic relations be restored between India and Pakistan, on the one hand, and the Union of South Africa on the other hand. Such relations should provide a harmonious prelude to the negotiations which we all hope will materialize.

We venture the further comment that the Union of South Africa, if it is reluctant to enter into negotiations as to this matter, can easily remove the need for any such negotiations by listening to the voice of overwhelming world opinion and adopt policies by its own volition, designed to eliminate discrimination against the peoples of Indian and Indo-Pakistan origin.

Once again my delegation appeals for the end of this dispute, an end by negotiation or, better still, an end by the free determination of the Union of South Africa itself to affirm and establish, in the words of the Charter, "the dignity and worth of the human person" and "the equal rights of men and women".