S/PV.1254 Security Council

In accordance with previous decisions. 1 propose to invite the representatives of Portugal, Liberia, Tunisia, Madagascar and Sierra Leone to tahe part, without vote. in the Council’s deliberations on the item before it. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Alberto Franco Nogueira (PorfugaI). Mr. J. Rudolph Grimes I-Liberia). Mr. Mon@ Slim (Emisia). Mr, Louis Rakotomaltia (Madagascar) acd Mr. C. B. Rogers- Wright (Sferra Leone) fook places af the Council table. 4. The Portaguese Minister for Foreign Affairs tried to prove to the Council that calm prevailed in Angola, Mozambique and so-called Portuguese Gulnea. and tbat the few dlsturbances there were due to terrorists who had infiltrated from outside. He quoted, in support of his argument, certain newspaper articles. Our friend and colleague, the representative of the Ivory Coast, showed yesterday how much credence should be given to some of those articles. 6. But the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal neglected to cite other, more recent, reports. Perhaps he Will allow me, in his place, to make up for that omission by citing a report by Lord Kilbracken, a well-known English author and journalist who served with the British Fleet Air Arm during the Second World War, with the rank of lieutenant-commander. The report appeared in the Evening Standard of 30 September 1965 and in the Rhodesia Herald and other papers on 1 and 2 October 1965-that is, less than a month ago: “Over a period of ten days, in militaxy aircraft, armed tntcks or armed cutters. 1 travelled through tbe zone of hostilities all along Lake Malawi, where the Portuguese troops are engaged in close combat with the FRELIMO guerrillas. The scale of the fighting in this bitter, unsung war has steadily increased since the first miner incidents just a year ago. and especially SO in recent weeks when there has been a strong FRELIMO build-up. “Today, the battle zone stretches some twenty to forty miles inland, along almost a11 of Mozambique’s lake shore, from the Tanzanian to the Malawi border. In 3,000 terrorized square miles the Portuguese. both civilians and military, are now confined to five small isolated garrisons- Metangula, Maniamba, CdbuB, Olivença and Nova Coimbra. 1 was able to visit a11 the garrisons save that of Olivença, a surrounded outpost held by some forty men and supplied by parachute.” 6. Contrary to the assertions of the Minister for Fore@ Affairs of Portagal, calm and peace do not seem to he reigning in Angola either. According to certain reports. four people were killed and several wounded as a result of a bombing raid in the Villa Pemba region on 13 October. On 14 October, after a second hombing raid on the village, twelve children and ten women were reported killed. In the Quicabo region. the villages of Dange and Caxito were bombed on the followingdates: Dangeon 8 May, 6 June. 30 July, 1’7 August. 9 nnd 28 September; Caxito, on 2 June, 8 July and 14 August: other slmilar bombing raids 8. AD tbese facts, tjl;en-in conjunction with the statements by Prime Minister Salaaar which 1 cited in my first statement to tbe Council [125Oth meeting], amply testify to the state of war existing in tbose Territories-a colonial war whicb has been going on since 1961 and which is spreading and assuming greater proportions, dange.ously threatening peace and security in Africa. 9. In his statement. the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal sought to imply that his Government had always co-operated with the United Nations, contrary to what 1 had said in my statementbefore the Council. When 1 spoke of Portugal% refusa1 to cc-operate, 1 was referring to its persistent refusa&-whicb 1 continue to assert-to co-operate with the United Nations in regard to the African Territories under its control. lt refuses to carry out a single resolution of the General Assembly or the Security Council; what is more, it even refuses to give consideration to and to carry out a single one of the humanitarian and political steps which the Security Council requested it to take in previous resolutions. 1 am not alone in asserting this. The Secretary-General, in the introduction to bis annual report on the work of the Organisation, says the same, and 1 sha!l quote once more: ‘In the case of the Territories under Portumese administration, there was no change in Portugal’s position of non-compliance with United Nations resolutions and in its refusa1 to co-operate with the Organisation in implementing them” I/ 10. The Portuguese Nlinister for Foreign Affairs has also categorically denied that Portuguese troops bave made incursions into Senegal, in violation of that conntryts territorial integrity. Nevertheless, with a11 due respect for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal, such incursions did in fact Cake place and were the subject of two separate complaints brought Nous tenons. trop ~ra~a~~~té parlé doutes doutes qui reposent ne prmenant Je veux dé& défense mation Je voudrais standing in bis statement before reeaent whieh bas been c0&aed. bt its two atlies benefit from tbe acquired in tbe course of four years’ Africm possessions. It is of this agreement that we uncernent made at Pretoria, before 14 September-*by e Winister, Mlr. Yim i?okb& th African armed forces were go@ & I 13. Forgive me for these Iengthy quotatians, but I should like in tbis connexion to quote the following; passage from an article which appeared in this morning’s The New York Times: ‘The Portugueae Government, despite its clear sympathies for the wbite Rhodesian cause, remains officially noncommittal as to its future actions should Rhodesia deolaare its independence . . . “Resisting together the powerful African nationalistic pressures, Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa bave become allies in something of a ‘white nslers’ bloc’ in the south of the continent. *The Government feela t.hat Portugal’s destiny in Africa-and her auccessful defence of the territories of Angola and Mozambique againstnationalist rrillas-is intimately tied to the outcome in esia.“g 14. I bave offesed these quotations withthe customary reaervations, but 1 consider that it provides a good explanation of Mr. Nogueira’s denial yesterday, as it might also explain why the Portuguese delegation has shown no coolness towards the Government of Mr. Ian Smith. eithes in the recent debates in the Foustb Committee 0~ in plenary meeting of the General Assembly on the subject of thepresent explosive situation in Southern Rhodesia. This reaction also explains wby Portuguese delegation-altbough Portugal, we are y convinced, is net in faveur of apartheid-has never displayed any public disapproval of the policy of Mr. Verwoerd’s Government during the debates on apartheid in tbe General Assembly OP the Security Coumil. 10. I should be happy if, when the Security Council 0~ the General Assembly next debates the apartheid policy of Soutla Africa, the position of the Portuguese delegation could provide me with a categorical denial on tk’? subject. 16. 10 tbe interests of efficiency, and as Ipointed out in my initial statement, P avoided any lengthy discussion of the meaning of self-determination and tbe basic differences in the definition of that concept which resulted in the breakdown of the contactsundertaken between Bortugal and the African countries under tbe aegis of the Secretaxy-General. 1 thought that P had indeed spoken a+. some considerable length on this subject in the course of my intervention in the debate in the Security Council in December 1963 [BQ?%h meeting]. “My delegation said then that self-determination irnplied the consent of the people to the form of Government and tbeir agreement to the structure of tbe tite and system of administration.” [1253rd meeting, para. 23.1 Tbis Portuguese interpretation of self-determination. in car view, voids tbis concept of ?11 substance, siuc@ in fact it restricts the free choice of the population to agreement or consent. to a certain acceptance. 16. Self-determirnation, as recoguized by theGeneral Assernbly and tbe Security Council, is based on the free choice of a population confmnted with various aBernatives concemiug its future. The Portuguese conception. bowever. limits and predetermines-1 stress tbe Word “predetermines”-the choice of the p@oples under its administration. 19. Iudeed. no alternative, no possibility of another choice is envisaged in the event of the peoples concerned refusing their consent oragreement. 1 stressed tbe word ~predetermiuedn hecause the Minister for Foreigu Affairs of Portugal bas accused us ofwauting to predetermiue the results of tbe exercise of the rigbt of self-determination. 1 very much fear that, as 1 bave just showu, it is Portugal which has restricted the concept to a single possible choice, whicb it has SO to speak imprisoned in a siugle possible future, without offering the people so much as tbe Change to say “no” freely. peacefully and without constraiut to the system offered for their acceptance. 20. In order to demonstrate our concept of selfdetermination in its less restricitve and wider sense of genuinelY free choice, 1 should like, with your permission. Mr. President, tc refer to a question which Weil soon be debated in the General Assembly, tbat of the Cook Islands. 21. Althougb tbe mle of the United Nations in this question is more one of verification and supervision than of control. we were happy to welcome, as a geature of co-operation, the action taken by the Government of New Zealand. More than that-and this. 1 thll. proves how serious and how logical is our position-when the question was discussed in the Special Committee3/ we accepted the final choice decided upon by the people concerned, which was net, in tbis case, independence. The most important thing for colonial peoples, as was apparent in the debate in the Special Committee. is to be able to choose among several alternatives and to decide on the one best suited to their interests. 22. 1 ai-n sure that, once the Portuguese Government bas accepted the authentic. objective and interna- 3 special cnmmittee 0” rhe SINation vii* regard ta che Imp*emenLarion Of the Dectsratton ootheGrantingoflndependence CO Co,.x!ial counmies am3 Peoples. 23. 1 now corne to the second aspect of the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal. On the strength of certain Press reports, Mr. Nogueira sought to show that the struggle pursued by the nationalists of Angola, Mozambique and sc-called Portuguese Guinea-a limited struggle. accordiigto himwas no more than agitation on the part of a few terrorists, armed from abroad. who had infiltrated into those Territories. 1 should like at this point to put the following points to him simply but clearly. 24. First, it is axiomatic and amply proved, whether in Africa. Asia, Europe or elsewhere. that no liberatien movement, no agitation, no violent action conducted from abroad has or cari bave any chance of originating. or a fortiori of persisting and succeedlng, unless it is in-h the deep aspirations of the people concerned. unless it enjoys wlde support within the country itself, if not the active participationof the majority. No action, no struggle could bave takenplace in the African Territories under Portuguese domination, and still less bave lasted and spread since 1961, if the peoples of those Territories had been satisfied with their lot, if they had agreed and consented freely and without constraint tothepolitical systemgoverning them, even under the Portuguese Government’s singular definition of the principle of self-determlnation. 25. Secondly, we say frankly and honestly to the Minister for Fore@ Affairs of Portugal that Tunisia, together with all the independent States of Africa, has not and Will not spare any effort to lend its support snd assistance to its brothers of Angola, Mozambique and so-called Portuguese Guinea in their struggle tc recover their dignity, which has been flouted, their freedom, which has been taken from them, and their independence, which has been frustrated. 26. We should be SO happy if this could be done in peace, friendship and mutual understanding, on the basis of the just and reasonable principles set forth in the United Nations Charter, to which we Africans, as well as Portugal, adhered in good faith and whose obligations we accepted, in accordance with Article 4. 27. Al1 that is required is that the Portuguese Government should accept, as we do, the application to the African Territories of the principle of Selfdetermination as it is recognized and accepted by a11 the Members of the United Nations other than Portugal, and as it is defined in resolution 183 (1963) of the Security Council. The essential cause of the dangerous conflict which has arisen between Portugal and the peoples of Angola, Mozambique and so-called Portuguese Guinea would thendisappearandapeacefnl x). In the carefully docnmented, restrained and sober-if 1 may say so-statement made to us yesterday by the distiiguished Foreign Ministerof Portugal, 1 dld not hear another adumbration of the ancient thesis that Portugal had no colonies at ail. that it was a” integrated unitary natiomthatit had aunified territory under a Si”gle indivisible sovereignty and that therefore Article 73 of the United Nations Charter had no application to it. But 1 should hesitate to believe that on tbat basis alone we would be entitled to assume that Portugal has abandoned that thesis. 30. The Foreign Minister did. however, referbriefly to Portugal’s understanding of the principle of selfdetermination. This aspect of the matter is still important, because such obligations as the General Assembly and the Security Council bave sought and still seek to impose on Portugal stem directly from Article 73 of the Charter and the interpretation it has’ borne since the famous Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) on the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, which in turn hasbeen affirmed and reaffirmed by the resolutions of the Secwity Council with regard to Portugal. 1 refer to resolutions 180 (1963) of 31 July 1963 and 183 (1963) of 11 December 1963. 31. 1 bave therefore studied the Political Constitution of the Porhrguese Republic with some tare. as well as the political and administrative statutes of the province of Angola and the province of Mozambique. 32. Eve” Chapter XI of the Charter does not refer in specific terms to a ‘colonyn or a ‘colonial territory”. It refers only t.0 non-self-governingterritories as territorieS for the administration of which Members bave resynsibilities. and describes their peoples as net having yet attained a full measure of selfgover”me”t. In the other Article of that Chapter, Article 74. it distinguishes between “metropolitan areasv and such territories as are mentioned in Article 73. 33. The term “colony” is not a term of art in inter.. national law, or a terni with a specific constitutional Content eXCept under British constitutional law. Chapter XI steerS Clear of a”~ label, therefore, but describes the substance of the relationship: a metro- Politan area with a government which is responsible for other Non-Self-Governing Territories. These latter need “ot necessarily be located Overseas-the 34. .Therefore, if the substance of this relationship eau be established between Portugal and its Territories in Africa and Asia, it matters not the slightest whether you cal1 it a colony or an Overseas territory or an Overseas province. Anyone who takes the trouble to examine the Portuguese constitutional documents 1 referred to a short while ago Will bave no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Territories about which we are concerned in this debate are, in the commonly accepted parlance, the colonial Non-Self- Governing Territories of Portugal. 35. If 1 may illustrate: In part II of the Portuguese Constitution, Chapter VI carries in its title the term “Metropolitan Portugal”. Chapter VII is entitled “Overseas Portugal”; Article 133 is extremely significant, and with your permission, 1 shall read it out to you: “It is intrlnsic in the Portuguese Nation to fulfil its historic mission of colonization in the land6 of the Discoveries under their sovereignty and to diffuse among the populations inhabiting them the benefits of their civilization, as also to exercise the moral influence enjomed upon it by the Patronage of the East.” And there you find that dreadful word “colonization” nakedly and unashamedly standing out. 36. Article 134 states that the overseas Territories of Portugal described in sub-paragraphs II to V of Article 1 shall be known as “provinces” and that “their politico-administrative organisation shall be on lines best suited to their geographical situation and their social standards”. That nomenclature alone -calling them provinces-will not in fact and in trutb make the Overseas Territories provinces of metropolitan Portugal, even though they form, in constitutional terme., an integral part of the Portuguese State for the purposes of the Constitution, as article 135 provides. 37. Whereas the provision relating to the metropolitan part refers to “Citizen electors’, section III of Chapter VII is entitled: “On special gnarantees for natives”. Article 141 of the Constitution is important and again, wlth your permission, 1 shall read it: mThe State guarantees, through special measures in the stage of transition, the protection anddefence of the natives living in the provinces, in accordance with the principles of humanity and sovereignty, the provisions of this chapter and international conventi0ns.w ly pIpli& are on& sanction of maa- 43. In her book, Rosalyn Higgins states: mCollective aots of states. repeated by and acquiesced in by sufficient numbers with suffîcient frequtncy, eventually attain the status of law. The existence of the ‘United Nations-and especially its accelerated trend towards universality of membership since 1955~now provides a very dear, very concentrated, focal point for state practice.“Z/ 44. That is the correct legal approach to resolution 1514 (XV): by that resolutlon the United Nations created a norm of political behaviour which has been accepted by SO many and controverted by none. SO that it is too late in the day for any State tc attempt to wriggle out of its obligation by timewasting technicalities or, as 1 said on a previous occasion, Canute-like, sit on the shores of the political sea and bid the rolling waves not to touch Its sacred feet. 45. It is interesting, in this connexion, to recall that in his book which was referred to by the representative of the Ivory Coast yesterday [1253rd meeting], Mr. Franco Nogueira includes this revealing passage: ‘Portugal was admitted to the United Nations, and following what was already then the usualprocedure tbe Secretary-General immediately addressed a note to the Portuguese Government askiig whether it administered any territory within the scope of Article 73 of the Charter. The Portuguese Government replied negatively; and in a second note tc the Secretary-General, it declared that Portugal had no responsibilities for any territory for the purposes cf Article 73. That is all that was said. No further notes were exchanged and nothing happened until the first Assembly in which Portugal participated. What did the Portugaese reply mean? What implications were behind these three short Unes? Notbing less than tbis: The Portuguese Government indicated that the Portuguese Overseas provinces were not called to a aeparate independence; that it claimed exclusive competence to interpret and apply its own interna1 legal order; that it would not transmit information on its Overseas administration; that it did not submit to the régime of international censure by tbe community of nations; and finally that it stcod for a strict application ofthe letter and s/ Ik&. p. 2. ive in the ve rtb committee AS tbese cauntries in tbe mesbes d the r positions to be lad t‘ot tboa@t it new measures.A?I t is the attitude of the Fore@ Mini&er t0 Article 73 of tbe @barter. 46. If on@ Po a1 had. as tbe otber colonial Bowers did, volmtmily assumeêl the ob -Article 73 imposed no obligations-of p periodie information about its overseas Territories, without prejudice if you lihe, it would not bave been weessary. as the Poreign ~iniseerfoundityesteràay, to protest against the exaggerations, the distortions, tbe misrepresentations, the mere repetitions of earlier clebates. 47. Tbat bmk bad been writtenbefore 1962andbefore the Security C5umil adopted its important resolution 180 (1333) of 31 Juiy 1963. One may legitimately ask: gd react to the carrent of bistory smcl sbeead of it. and tbreatening to de, it? If the Foreign Minister’s attitude is any 31 July 1963 found him evea more msepentmit. 48. After the resolution had been passed by tbe Seourity Council on that fateful day, 31 July 1963, he just let himself go-I cari thirk of no more appropsiate phrase--in tbese well-chosen words: ‘As for tbe resohztion whicb has been adopted by tbe Swusity Couneil, even as amended, I wish mereIy to request tbat what Z bave already aaid before titis CoQnCil shouhl be a matter of record, ami foS ail useffiP purposes I wish to reiterate it bese and IlQW. on in I aay tbat this sesolution is morally wrong. be p31itiea11y sighht. hat is morally wrong cannot 49. Two years and more bave passed since that day, and only yesterday he patiently reeled out a catalogue of Portugal% achievements in the Territories under its administration;.andwithevidentpclemicalpleasure contrasted them with thcse .of other African States. 50. It may be permissible to add that no State Member of this Organisation is SO badly administered that it cannct point to one or more of the other States which are in a worse condition. But is that a valid test of Portugal% contentions? If, as we bave been and are being continually told, all the Territories are pro- VinCeS of Portugal, a unitary nation with anintegrated and a politically indivisible State, if that is truc. surely the real comparisons must be made with metropolitan Portugal and its social, economic and political institutions. That. would bave been the right apprcach, and of that we did not see or hear. He regaled us, too, with a list of names of what he regarded as qualified observers of the passing scene, recounting the glories of Pcrtugal’s achIevements and accomplishments, 51. And, indeed, one may ask: Why net? The distinguished British politican, , who subsequently became Lord Chandos, has written a forewcrd to this remarkable book by the Portuguese Foreign Minister, concluding with these two paragraphe: “1 bave known the author, Franco Nogueira, for many years and, although 1 must not be taken as subscribing to a11 his conclusions, 1 hope this bock Will be widely read. It is net a Government publication but a privately sponsored work by a sincere and learned student of colonial sffairs. “Portugal is entitled to a fair hearmg, andif there must be criticism against her it should be founded upon knowledge and study and not upon prejudice. Above all, the British who bave been in treaty Selatiens with Portugal for more than 600 years should read and nnderstand the Portuguese case.nB/ 1 do net understand the logic or relevaime of this-that 600 years of friendship should blind one’s eyes to tbe actualities that one is faced with; butthat is, reverting to the Ianguage of Lord Chandos, the Word picture of what one might calI tha English abiIity to put a sunny surface on a situation whicb is fulI of conflict and tension. 52. Anotber well-known English statesman of the first decade of this century, one who had written hIs name in the political history of bis times, said wisely and with epigrammatic terseness: Vood government is never a substitute for self-governmentn. Icommend Var from recogniefng the rigbt of the inhabitants to self-determination. as laid down by tbe General Assembly, it pursued its policy of closer political and economic integration of the Territories with Portugal.@~ 62. Moreover, we have already heard tbe statements of the representatives of Liberia, Tunisia, Madagascar and Sierra Leone, which showed that tbe situation in those Territories is far from calm, and that it is far more dangerous and explosive than it was two years ago when this Counoil determined that the situation was dîsturbing the peace and security in Africa. 63. This is the background of the problemnowbefore this Council. It is obvious that Portugal continues to ignore the appeais, recommendations, and decisions of the varfous organs of the United Nations, as well as those of regtonal and other organisations. And the question arises: Are we to continue adoplmg resolutions wbich Portugal continues to defy? 64. We have heard the Foreign Minister of Portugal give the right of self-determination a different interpretation. Se presented tbe unprecedented view that self-determination sbould mean the mere consent and adherenece of the peoples of the three Nou-Self- Governiug Territories, to eertain politkal, economic ad social systems devised for tbem. 66. We submit that self-determination is a birthright; it is a legal righk its definition and meaning were adopted by the United Xations in its well-hnown resolotion 15.14 (XV) adopted at the fifteenth sessionof the General Assembly. ft is not open to the representative of Portugal to introduce a new criterion to fit their colonial policy and their attitude of exploitation in the three areas under their administration. ReSOlution 1514 (XV) skates this about the definition of the right of self-determination: vAIl peoples have the right to self-dete~mination; by virme of that right they freely determine their policital status, and freely pursue tbeir economic, social and cultural deve1opment.a This definition was confirmed by the Security Council in its resolution PS3 (1963) of 11 December 1963. 68. T FaFe Ytister of RI te& us that, wben AfF muatries spe co-operatioon, tbeÿ “mean . . . tbe CO-caperation reqtdred to impkmeurt tbeir proposais, to carry aut tbeis i&aW. Ow ?ïlwweP to tbis 1s Wo”, hecause VIe aU lmcw tbat tire prqmsa8û are tbose of the United Kations, the decisiens aFe tbcse of tbe sec orneil. and tbe ideals s.Fe thse @t-ISbFii& and e d in OOF Charter. 69. My mllea~e beside me. the represenktive of Malaysia, explained very ably the role of the United Nations in this matter. and I need net dweU on the juridical aspects very ably presented tbis morning. 70. Tbe Governmeat of Portugal is avare of tk fact tbat the spirit of Liberation is awakening in Africa. It is the spirit of Eh@ day: there is no room in today% worbd for domination and exploitation and expansion. I%@re is ample room fo? co-operation and togethermss. Thraugh tbis spirit of ca-operation and under- Standiig, Portugal cari certainly prote& its legitimate ht@reSts. Colonial wars never salve problems: they always ereate nev ones. Repressive measures never Oh@& liberation movements: they strengthen the Will SJI~ determination of the people to struggle and secrifice to attain their pruser pface in the family of 72. We hope that the Portnguese Government Will be able to change its policy. because such a change is in its own intere& We hope Portugal Will be able tc enter into negotiations in order to discnss speedy ways and means for grantiig self-determination to the peoples of the area. This is the way to peaceZu1 cc-operation and to friendly relations between aIl the parties concerned. Iiideed. this is the way to protect the interests, dignity and prestigeof Portugal. If, however, the Portuguese Government continues its defiance of Wnited Nations authority and continues its policy of repression and exploitation against the peoples of Angola, Mozambique and so-calIed Portnguese Guinea-and this, unfortunatcly, seetns Iikely to be the case-then we submit that the Council is. duty-bouud to consider further steps to protect the rigbts of these peoples. 73. The Security Council has already adopted resolutions 180 (1963) and 183 (1963). It called for an embargo on weapons, munitions and war material. We cari see, from the documents before us and from statements we bave heard. that these resolutions were not fully implemented by all. We consider this a serious matter which the Council should net overlcok. The Council may aIso want to adopt other steps to safeguard the rights of the people. 74. These are the views which my delegation wishes to place before the Council at this stage of our deliberations. 75. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): 1 wish to intervene shortly in a debate which 1 very respectfully say has been notable for the high standard of the speeches made. I do not wish to make any distinctions, but perhaps 1 might b6. permitted specialiy to refer to the remarkable speech made yesterday by the representative of the Ivory Coast. He gave us what migbt bo ralI,ed a funeral oration on colonialism, an oration both erudite and cloquent, polished and powerful-a joy to us all, if 1 may say SO. The other speeches which bave been made bave been strikingly restrained and constructive. They bave show& as we expected, the gravest concert& but 1 think they bave also been guided by a Ionging tc sec some new and hopefnl initiative. a longing to see happy and hopeful 77. We wish tbat therewas some new development, some new initiative. as I say. some new direction in Portuguese policy in Aftica which would caD for new comment and give some bope for the future. It is a matter of great regret to us, as it is to SO many otbers, chat tbere ha% infact,beennomajor departure in the policy parsued by Portugal in tbe past. 78. Again we say tbat what is needed is a new directien, a new course in the direction of self-determination. It is tbe direction tbat matters. lf the objective could be to prepare and plan for a time when t.be people tbemselves Will decide their destiny and effectively manage -tbeir. own affairs, then the timing and the method would becorne less important. Tbat 1s. surely, tbe lesson of nmch experience elsewhere. If the direction is right. then some delay cari he tolerated. If it is wrong. to press on Will otiy make thiis worse. 79. There are aD kinds of variations in the steps to be taken and tbe mesns to be employed. The lesson we bave learned in other parts of Africa is that, once tbe right abject bas been set, then it is possible to enlist the co-operation and, indeed, the enthusiasm of the people in the practical preparations for selfgovermnent. 80. Here in the United Nations we do net need to argue the case for self-determination. Ail that we now ask of the Portuguese Government is that the prfnciple should be accepted. Once that is done, new fields of preparation and a>-operation are at once opened UP. new hope emerges, new impetus is provided for schemes of education and training. new opportmdties are provided for political and constitutiOnal experience, national aspirations oan be wel- Cmmd and encouraged. and. if experience elsewhere is anY guide. the time-table of advance wiU soon be accelerated. It is the interests and also the aims of the people that nmst be paramount. 81. At the risk of being acoused by my friend the representative of Malaysia of illustrating the English ability to look on the sunny side of things, 1 would say that even at this late heur Portugal bas opportunities to win the co-operation and support of the African peoples with whom Portugal has been SO long associated. 1 was glad to hear the representatives of Tunisia. of Malaysia and of Jordan all eXlmeSS hOPes of the same kind. A single decision t0 accept the principle of self-determination as we understsnd it here at tbe United Nations could change net on?v the present situation but the whole prospect for the future. 1 believe that. in tbe end, free associa- 83. Again I urge that. in the interests of the African peoples, in the interests of Portugal itself, and in the interests of preserving peace. Portugal sh0uid take that single and essential decision-the decision to make self-determination the aim of its African policy. 83. NOW let me turn shortly to deal with an accusation made against my Government. It has been suggested that my country is in some way concerned wlth assisting the Portuguese Government to maintain their present policy in their Overseas Territories and, in particular. that the United Kingdom has provided arms to assist the Portuguese Government to do 60. We bave denied this allegation in the past, and 1 am glad to deny it again today. We bave made it quite plain that we do not supply arms or military equipment to Portugal for this purpose. and we are iixlly satisfied that no arms or equipment from the United Kingdom to metropolitan Portugal in recent years has been used by the Portuguese in their African Territories. Our policy, consequently, is in line wlth Security Council resolution 180 (1963), and we bave, accordingly. duly reported to the Secretary- General. 84. We suspended the delivery of arms and military equipment to the Portuguese Overseas Territories four years ago. and since then we bave consistently followed a policy whicb accords with the Security Council resolution. No military equipment is being sent by the United Kingdom Goverument for use in those Territories, snd we bave no intention whatever of sending any. 1 am glad to make that categorical denial of the allegations whicb bave been made. 85. It has been‘ further suggested that my Government as a member of the NATO alliance contributes in some way to the Portuguese armed forces in Africa. 1 am glad to deny this toc. It is no part of the function and purpose of KATO to support the policy of the Portuguese Government in Africa, and neither as a member of NATO nor acting independently has my Government any Intention of providing arms or military equipment for such use. 86. Now let me say a word about the future. In the past there have heen the beginnings of potentially valuable contacts between Portugal and the other States of Africa, and indeed with a11 countries that wish the Portuguese Territories ami Portugal itself to fIourish. We should Rke to see a renewal of those associations, particularfy between the representatives of African oountries and the Por+uquese Government. 88. We greatly hope that %ew ways and meansn. to use the Foreign Mi&ter% words. cari be f&und for establishing constructive co-operation between the Portuguese Government on tbe one hand and the African States snd the United Nations on the other. An earlier endeavour made in this direction, though net succesaful at the time. might show the way. We believe, as 1 bave already made plain, that the fnndamental question is that of the eventual objective tc be pursued in these Territories. But it is not inconsistent witb tbat contention to hope that, instead of barren dispute, there should be opened “p the pcssihility of a fruitful consultation and cc-operation. 89. We are encouraged in that hope by the speech of the Foreign Minister and by the fact that, in the spberes of education and local government and. above ail. in the spbere of race relations. the polïcies pursned by Portugal in Africa bave shown recognition tbat the interests of the people of the Territories concert& must play an ever increasïng part; indeed it is our contention that the interests and the aims of the people sbould be paramount.

Once again the Security Conncil is seised of the dispute between a number of African states and Portugal concernin8 the status of thelatterconntry’soverseasTerr%ories. My delegation hasbeen happy to listen to the restrainec snd high-minded speeches of the Fore@ Ministera of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Tunisia and of the representative of Madagascar, as spokesmen of the Africar States; we bave listened with equal interest to ths able exposé of the Fore@ Minister of Portugal explaining the policy of his country. Likc the Unitec Eingdom representative. we bave been heartened. 1 must say, by the high level of the interventions. We trope that the presence of these five distinguished statesmen in tbis Council Will lead to a fruitful discussion of the question before ns. We hope. indeed, 91. The principle of self-determination. as mentioned in the provisions of the Charter and long embodied in the practlce of the United Nations, particularly In resolutions 742 (VIII), 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV), has been consistently applied by the former Western colonial Pcwers since the fcunding of the Organization. The various territories of Africa, wlth a few exceptions. bave one by one become independent and today govern themselves. The Portuguese Overseas Territories constitute one of those exceptions, since Pcrtugal does not accept the view that they are non-selfgovernlng in the sense of Chapter XI of the Charter. There we bave the crux of the matter. 92. My Government is not unaware of some political and social reforms which Portugal has recently initiated in its Overseas Territories, resulting In further decentralization, an increase in social services and better educational facilities; nor are we unaware of the essentially multiracial character ofportuguese society. In spite of this. my Government. as it has stated before, cannot accept Portugal’s constitutional thesis with regard to its Overseas Territcries. Yesterday the representative of the Ivory Coast In his excellent speech was kind enough to quote a statement made by the late Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in 1948 to show how the attitude of the former coionial Powers had changed and to prove that, as it was put in Her Majesty’s speech, ‘Colonialism is dead”. My delegation is grateful to him for rnenticning this. We bave tried to live upto this principle. 93. We most sincerely hope that Portugal too Will follow this example of,other Western colonial Powers snd apply to a11 its non-self-governing Overseas Territories the prlnciple of self-determination. This view is indicated in my Gcvernment’s answer to a note of the Secretary-General. in compliance with operatke paragraph 6 of resolution 180 (1963) of the Security Ccuncil, dated 31 July 1963. In that reply my Government stated inter alia d “The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does net and Will net give any assistance tc the Government of Portugal which would enable it tc continue its present policy with regard to the Overseas Territories under its administration and does net and Will oct supply any arms and military equipment to Portugal for this purpose.“-/ 94. My Gcvernment then would like to see Portugal provide the inhabitants of its Overseas Territories with an cpportuni’y to express tiiemselves freely on the status they faveur for their lands. We conclude 95. My delegation would submit. however. that neither the Charter. noi the basic resolutions of the General Assembly on decolonizaticn, nor the practice of the United Nations, restricts the option of the inhabitants of colonial territories to independence; but neither, on tbe other hand. is there any reason to restrict the option to a choice “withinthenationalframework”. 96. What is required and what is essential for the solution of the problem before us is the free and unrestricted choice of the people, expressed under democratic procedures, and there would seem to be little doubt that if the inhabitants of the Territories under discussion were to choose lndependence, Portugal would be the first to reap thebenefits. By losing a subject. it would probably gain a friend. The friendship between France and its former African territories, the whole structure of the British Commonwealth and. for that matter, the close ties between Portugal itself and its former colony. Brazil, provide examples of a new and amicable relationship of a modem character. 97. The Security Council is now once more called upon to try to promote a solution of this dispute. In the opinion of my delegation, this solution must be found by peaceful means, and, in our view. those means under the Charter bave not yet been exhausted. Notwithstanding the f& that the resolutions adopted on thés score bave. much to the regret of my delegation, SO far remained without effect, we think there is every reason to resume discussion of the question with Portugal under the auspices of the UnitedNations. We continue to nourish the hope that Portugal cari be persuaded to drop its restrictions on the applicatior of the right of self-deA%rmination. 98. The talks which were held m New York ix October 1963~to which the previous speaker jusl referred-behveen Portugal and the African States and on which the Secretary-General reported to thf Council on 31 Octlber 1963. were net. in our view conclusive. However. the fact that thev could be helc is in itself an encouraging development. and w should like to see them resumed. If 1 understoot 01 IL&.. pr. 16. 99. In that connexion. my delegation has duly noted the suggestion of the Foreign Minister of Portugal that the Security Council should appoint a subcommittee, including one representative of Portugal snd one of the African countries “to assess whether there is a threat to international peace and security either on our part, as is alleged, or on the part of others, and to investigate the bases snd the camps in foreign territories and the infiltrations across border@ [1253rd meeting, para. 501. “. 100. My delegation would in principle be prepared to consider the feasibility of a sub-committee. We feel, however, that the mandate of sucb a subcommittee, or of any other body which might be set up, should net be limited to the investigation of the threat to international peace ancl security, but should also caver the question of self-determination, wbich is, as 1 bave tried to explain, the very heart of the matter. 101. We believe that it is not too latefor a concerted effort to find a peaceful and honourable solution on this basis to the problem before us, a solution which would be honourable to Portugal, honourable to Africa and honourable to the United Nations. My delegation would be ready to co-operate in the search for such a solution. The meeting rose et 12.35 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS United Notions publicotions moy be obtoined - distributors throughout the world. write to: United Notions, Sales Section, COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS Les publications des Notions Unies sont en agences dépositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous ou adressez-vous 0: Notions Unies, Section COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES Litho in U.N. Price: 8U.S. 0.50 (or equivalent in cher