S/PV.1256 Security Council

In accordance with previous decisions, 1 propose to invite the representatives of Portugal, Liberia, Tunisia, Madagascar and Sierra Leone to participate, without vote. in the consideration of the item before us. At the invitation of the President. Mr. Alberto Ffa~Oo Nogueh fPortugal). Mr. J. Rudolph Grimes (waeria), Mr. Moagi Slim (Tu&&). Mr. Gabriel Ra=fimmo f~adagascar) snd itfr. C. B. Rogers- Wright fsjerra L-me) took places at the Co~~i1 table. 3. Before presenling my delegation’s views on the substance of the qqestion, as we face it “ow, 1 should like to respond briefly to a number of statements made in the Council involving the attitude of the United States towards this question. 4. Taking first the question of the supply of arms to Portugal, the United States has, for some time, consonant with the recommendations of the Councll, felt that arms supplied to Portugal for use in its overseas Territories. or arms supplied for other purposes and usad in its overseas Territories, might well contribute to increased friction, tension and danger. With these considerations ln mind, the United States has, for a number of years. forbidden the provision of arms omilitary equipment from public or private sources, without specific assurances that they Will not be used in the Territories. In line with the same objectives, the United States has alsoprohibiteddirect expert of arms and military equipment to the Portuguese Territories. This is a fcreign policy to whicb the United States Will continue to adhere. 5. In this connexion, aay 1 add, in response to the suggestion that NATO was making arms and armaments a-ailable to Portugal, that this is not the case. In the first place, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, as its “ame implies. is committed to the defence of the North Atlantic area, and only to the defence of the North Atlantic area: it is operative only withi” that area-an area which does net include the Portuguese African Territories. In the second place, NATO does not supply arms. Individual nations supply arms to other nations in terms of comme” defence interests and commitments under NATO. 6. The Portuguese Government’s attitude towards its Territories is not to be attributed, and is t ot attributable to Porhigal’s membership in NATO. In fact. the evldence is quite to the contrary, since alj those other members of NATO which bave had colcnies are following or bave followed the process of 8. Reference has also been made to the question of private foreign investment in the Portuguese Territories. We cannot accept the contention that it is fore@ private investment in these Territories which is impeding the implementstion of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in these Territories; nor could we accept a proposai that the immediate withdrawal of fore@ investment, which relates to the welfare of the people of the Territories, would accrue to their advantage. 9. 1 bave made these remarks because some statements bave heen made in this debate net bearing upon the merits, it seems to me. and which required this brief comment. 10. Now 1 turn to the substance of the question, whiob is far more important. It has been said before this Cauncil and In other forums that the oroblem of the Portuguese Territories cari now besolved only by violence, that the situation has reached such a Point that peaceful means-that change without violence-are no longer possible. That is a very serious statement and 1, for one. reject su& defeatist thinking. 1 do so wlthout ignoring or minimiaing the obvious dangers inherent in r‘elay-dangers which probably make a peaceful solution more difficult to achieve. 11. On repeated occasions the Cou&l-and, to an extent, tbe General Assembly-has outlined an appmach along peaceful lines which should not present insurmountable difficulties if the parties involved were really to accept them in good spirit and in good faith, but which to date has net produced the progress we would bave hoped. 12. The Council has repeatedly called on Portugal to recogniae the right of self-determination of the Portuguese Territories. It has further urgedPortuga1 to make this right a reality. Two years ago, as 1 read the record, we thought we were close to an important breakthrough when the Repuhlic of Portugal and the representatives of the African States held a series of contacts and discussions. But these discussions, to the regret of the Council, as expressed in its resolution 183 (1963) of 11 Decemher 1963, failed to reach agreement on the central point, that is, on the generally s.ccepted interpretation which has been made by the Council and the General Assembly of the concept of self-determination. 13. My Government had felt, during the winter of 1963-1964. that the contacts between the representative of Portugal and the representatives of the 14. The General Assembly has also furtber defined thls concept In lts resolutlon 1541 (XV), which sets forth the means and forms whereby the objectives of Article 73 cari be achieved. namely: emergence as a soverelgn independent State. free association with an independent State, or lntegration wlth an independent State. In our vlew, these concepts stated by the Assembly are the basic sorts of options which should be available to the people of the Portuguese Territories. 15. lt was in llght of this situation, in light of what we felt was nearness of agreement on the acceptance of these prtnclples. that the United States, andprobably other members of the Council, supported resolutlon 183 (1963). Since the adoption of that resolutlon by the Security Council. we bave had one further report from the Secretary-General dated 29 May 1964 [S/5727]. The Secretary-General, who was involved in the talks which took place at that time, could report no positive developments on thr possibility of further consultations and talks between the representatives of Portugal and the representatives of the African States. And this is unfortunately where we find ourselves today. 16. in the Territories themselves, it is very plain from what is evident to ail. that tensions continue, whlch, unless resolved. will haveunfortunate implications for peace and security in the African continent. 17. However. since the Secretary-General% report in May 1564. time has passed. illhile at that time the margin may hsve been tw large to bridge. 1 should like to pose tbis question: Would it net be wisa, in the interests of achieving what this Council has hoped to achieve, to take another look at the differences that still sepnrüte the parties? Would it trot be rosh to suppose tiiat. because the disngreements appeared unbridgeable in the winter of 196d, tbat nov+almost two years later-the differences should be the same? 18. My delegation and my Government are inescapably drawn to the conclusion that the contacts of 1963 sbuld be re-established on the bas& of Council resolution 183 (1963) and that a good-faith effort and attempt should be made to close the gap-1 repeat, on the basis of this resolution. Not to do SO, not to make SUC~ an attempt at this point, would seem to my Government to ignore one of the most hopeful possibilities for progress towards peaceful change and peaceful resolution of this problem. 19. TO give impetus to such an approach. the United States delegation believes that the Council. at tbis time, should take certain concrete steps ta encourage lution. Council resoiution 183 (1963) received majority support and represents the clearestexpression. and the clearest precision in terms of definition of the CounciPs view on self-determination for the Portuguese Territories. 21. Second, the Council might recommend that discussions be initiated promptly between the representatives of Portugal and tbe representatives of the African States on the basis of the same resolution-that is. on the basis of the concept of self-determination contained therein. Such a recommendation would be entirely consistent with the first operative paragraph of that resolution, which reflects the regret of the Council that the earliest contacts were unahle to produce agreement. 22. The Council might also request the Secretary- General to continue bis earlier efforts with the parties concerued. and to report to the Council as appropriate. The role of the Secretary-General in the earlier contacts, it seems to me, should net be minimised, In attempting to initiate new discussions it would not only he logical, but also wise to seek bis important assistance in achieving the Council’s unanimous goal of self-determination for the Territories. 23. Finally, we make this suggestion not with a feeling of optimism-in view of the past history of this difficult matter-but we make it without any feeling of desperation, for we urge a11 of the parties concerned to recogniae that our responsibilitiesunder the Charter-both theirs and the Council’s-make it incumbent upon us to explore every possible avenue towards peaceful evolution and peaceful solution of the problem. In OUI view, ïesumed contacts on this basis are not only desirable but are also plainly required to carry out the purposes of the Charter and to implement the Council’s prier resolutions.

In our view, the complaint lodged on their own behalf and on behalf of the countries belonging to tbe Organisation of African Unity by the representatives of Liberia, Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Tunisia does not introduce any new elements which may be regarded as constituting a threat to peace and security. 25. What is really being brought once again to the attention of the Securitv Council is Portuaal’s nresence v ~. -~~-~ in African territory which was condemned by the Addis Ababa Conference, held froa 22 to 25 May 1963.g the continued existence of a colonial system 26. 1 represent a country, the Eastern Republlc of Uruguay, which was once a colonial territory. Itforms part of a continent a11 of which used to be under colonial rtle. Two great European Powers coloniaed it ln the sixteenth century-Spahi and Portugal. Mycountry is llnked to both by its history. In the fight agalnst them, America was broken up into some twenty sovereign States. They won their independenoe through bloodshed, heroism and great sacrifice. They were united in their action which was continent-wlde. They bore the mother countries no malice but were passionately deternined to be free. 27. The United Kingdom, France and the United States of America influenced this revolutionary and anti-colonialist process: the first by teaching free trade and by setting up the first printlng press in my own country; the second with its clarion call; the third through its independence and republican institutions. Our America asserted its doctrine and its thesis of international law-the well-known uti possidetis juris of 1810, promulgated by the Congress of Angostura in 1819, and the non-recognition of any territorial acquisition or advantage obtained either byforceorby other means of coercion, as laid down in article 17 of the charter of the Crganization of AmericanStates. In short, these ,principles proclaim in clear and categorical terms: America for the Americans. It is inoumbent on a11 American countries to ensure that those criteria and principles are universally applied. 28. Hence it is easy for Uruguay to state its position ln this debate. And 1 do SO on the explicit instructions of my Government. for wbich the issue is net one of judging or attacking Portugal, a friendly country. but of applying basic principles. Colonialism is a form of relationship and legal status which is incompatible with current world thinking. It is therefore net important to know how the ruling Power exercises its colonial functions, or, at this stage, to evaluate the claims it asserts, for on that subject we bave pronouncements by the United Nations. Of course, there are forms and manners of ruling that are more odious than others: indeed there ca” even be benevolent paternalism and a civilisingmission without discrimination of any kind, and development may in fact be fostered. But if the system is colonial. it cannot but be contrary to the present-day legal, political and moral thinklng of a11 the peoples of the world. 29. The Minister for Fore@ Affairs of Portugal, hi his capable statements, did in fact effectively answer 31. But as regards Portugal and its presence in those African territories where, under the General Act of Berlin, it has exercised sud still exercises an administration which may not violate the principles and norms of decent human relations, the peoples concerned must bave their say. Self-determination and non-intervention are two commandments of manmade law. It must be the peoples of Mozambique. of Angola and of Guinea who declare and determine their destiny and their will. This was established by the Security Council in its resolution 180 (1963) of 31 July 1963 and laid down by the General Assembly in its historic resolution 1514 (XV), which states: aA peoples bave the right to self-determination: by oirtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic. social and cultural development. * 32. lt is on this point that the Security Council, the United Nations and the world at large are anxious to know what Portugal has to say. 1s it or is it net willing to give the peoples concerned the chance to state what they want their own future to be? Does it 39. Yet the answer to that question is to he found in the very text of the Council resolution; he should bave read out to us the whole of the paragraph concerned. 1 shall therefore complete his quotation by reading paragraph 1 of resolution 204 (1965) of 19 May 1965, which states: “Deeply deplores any incursions by Portuguese military forces into Senegalese territory”. The paragraph states clearly “any incursions by Portuguese military forcesintoSenegalese territory’. For our part, when we find it necessary to quote a text, we quote it in full. 40. But here we have further proof that ihe situation threatens international peace and security. We should, we believe, look the facts in the face,without allowing ourselves to become involved in sterile polemios. 41. It is clear from ihe statements made yesterday by the Portuguese Fore& Minister that Portugal maintains its position as regards the fiction that the African territories it administers are provinces, and also its singular definition of the principle of selfdetermination. We, for our part, maintain that the orly valid definition, the only oneacceptedhjsirtually the entire membership of this Organization, is the one laid down by the Security Council in its resolution 183 (1963). 42. While 1 referred, in my previous statement. to the possibility of discussions wlth the Government of Portugal, 1 want to make it consummately clear that such discussions could take place only after Portugal had unequivocally accepted such a definition as a whole, including the possibility of a choice of sovereigntjr in independence. and an opportunity for the free and unhampered expression of opinion. 1 repeat, and 1 maintain. that it is only once this position has been clarified, in the sense of the interpretationglven in the Council resolution. that a discussion Will be possible and really useful-a discussion not wilh US, but only with the qualified andgenuine representatives of the peoples of Angola, Mozambique and so-oalled Portuguese Guinea. 5uch a discussion would bear on ways and means of ensuring the free and peaceful exerclse of the principle of self-determinationineach of those Territories. 43. Until such time as such a definition is clearly accepted by the Portuguese Government, any discussion-if it were accepted in principle-Cou!d bear only on the definition of self-determination. But the Escurity Council has already taken a stand on this issue. Would the Council be prepared, befors the

Inow give the floor to the Mlnister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal.

1 wilI only take one or two minutes of the Council’s time at this stage to make some very brief remarks. 1 do “ot wish to indu& in polemics and, therefore, 1 amnot answering the statement made before the Council yesterday by the representative of the United Republic of Tansania [1225tb meeting]. If 1 may. with the President’s permission, 1 Will make 0nIy one or two points. 46. It was recalled by the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania that Tanaania is geographically cantiguous to Mozambique and, therefore, Tanaania is in a position to know what goes on ln Mozambique. But, with Mozambique belng geographically contiguous to Tanzania, by the same token, SO would we be well informed of what is going on in Tanzania. The representative of Tansania has informed the Council that we bave built eighteen or SO airfields in Mozambique. NO~. this may well be tme; but 1 suggest and submit to the Council that this is our business and not the business of anyone else. But this is net the point. The point really is: are we attacking Tanzania, or anyone else for that matter. from those bases? Are we sendinefrom those bases anv terrnrists or infiltrators across the borders? This is the mal problem; this is the real point. And 1 am sure that the representative of Tanzania cannot but reply in the negative. 47. 1 axx also very happy that the representative of the Unlted Republic of Tansania has informed the Council tbat at Moshi. Tenga and Kongwa, and in other places, there are no military bases or training camps. If that is SO. then 1 am sure that the Tanzanian Government has no difficulty in letting a” international body. appointed by the UnitedNations Security Council, investigate this situation, As to the training camps and the words used to describe them, the representative of Tanzania was mistaken in one sense: the words were not mine. 1 was quoting from a” article 48. NO~, 1 wish, if 1 may, to make one point of a general nature. We did not ask for this meeting of the Security Council; we did not take the initiative in raising the subjects we are debating in the Security Council; we did net make any accusations against any delegation or country. We bave been the accuse& we are the ones who are being attacked and accused. But the attacking and accusing delegations always want to have the last word; whereas it seems to my delegation that, to defend itself, my delegation should be the one to have the last Word. 49. But it seems that certain countries or certain delegations cannot bear any criticism; for them it seems intolerable that anyonemaydisagreewithtbem. My delegation does not claim to be 100per cent right. We do not claim for us the monopoly of knowledge, the monopoly of idealism. or the monopoly ofwisdom. We do not suggest that a11 the others are 100 per cent wrong. But it seems to me quite unfair to give us the monopoly of errors. 1 agree that this time my friend, the representative of Tunisia, has quoted in full the pertinent paragraph of the resolution on the border incidents with Senegal. But this precisely, inmyview, confirms what 1 have said before this Council, namely, that the Council did not specify or name auy concrete incursions, and 1 am sure the Security Council would not have failed to do so if any incursions whatever had, in fact, taken place. 50. With the President’s permission, 1 should like to reserve the right to make a further statement if 1 feel-and if in the view of my delegation-that any other pronouncements or accusations in this Council would cal1 for any further information, explanations or reply from my delegation.

1 did not get the opportunity to offer a few words of comment by way of reply yesterday-which 1 had asked for and assumed 1 might be accorded. But Iunderstood that the position, as it developed, was such that the Chairhad to adjourn the meeting. 1 therefore wish to exercise my right of reply now, with regard to some of the matters mentioned by the Foreign Minister of Fortugal. 52. 1 .vould be les6 than human if 1 did net feel quite flattered when, yesterday [1255thmeeting], the Fore@ Minister of Portugal found it necessary to spend a disproportionate amount of his reply to disclose to the Council the ““importance-or worse-of the statement 1 had made the previous day [1254th meeting]. 1 must offer my sympathy to my colleague, the representative of Jordan, who received no such flattering attention from the Foreign Minister, notwithstanding that he was no less critical of Portugal than 1 or the representative of the Ivory Coast in his statement. 53. 1 should therefore like to say a few words in reply to the ForeignMinister of Portugal, who gallantly attempted to controvert some of the remarks 1 had 54. Tbis is, perhaps, to be expected. The Foreign 54. Tbis is, perhaps, to be expected. The Foreign Minister eonfessed yesterday that, even as he was Minister eonfessed yesterday that, even as he was listening ta my speech, his amazement grew with listening ta my speech, his amazement grew with astonishing intewity. Zis Iife had been transferred to astonishing intewity. Zis Iife had been transferred to another world, he said. What else, theu, would he see another world, he said. What else, theu, would he see but ghosts. old and y-g. emerging from corners but ghosts. old and y-g. emerging from corners he he could net sec? IIe said that he alao saw the United could net sec? IIe said that he alao saw the United Nations eloek put back many years. That. indeed. is the ck& *-Rh wbich Portugal bas been living for more W.I twenty years. Indeed. it stopped tickiug in 1945. It was very gratifying to me that *y speech made tbe Foreign Minister aware of that fact. 55. 1 had net indulged in the graiuitous folly of seeking to educate the Foreign Minister of Portugal. either in Iaw or in politics, against his own clear convictions regard& colonialism and the fa& of its non-existence -in Po&guese Territories, which is bis own interpretation-an interpretation to which he has given the permanence of the printed word. Yesterday he added to it the additional glass of distinguishing between colonization and colonialism. 56. We ail understand that there is a vitaldistinction be&een tbet\ÿo.Colonizationistheparent: colonialism is the offspring. Those of us who bave had a lit& political education bave always known that colonisation was regarded by the coloniser as the development of the undeveloped resources of an Overseas territory. But the colonized people lived and learned to regard it as exploitation. 51. I believe that we in this Council havea right. and a duty. to express oui own views, even if they are unpalatable to Portugal, even if they involve our own interpretations of other peoples’ laws to the extent to which objective judgementsarepossiblefromavailable documentation. But surely even the Foreign Minister inust concede that there is another point of view witb regard to colonialism, even if it is held only by a11 the other 115 Members of this Organisation. If anyone, therefore, has the unchallengeable right to claim speeial value and originality for the conclusions he has reached. it is surely the Foreign Minister of Portugal who has a right to wear that crovm. 58. IIe suggested that 1 had probably net read other parts of his hooka which might bave brought some light to what he no doubt considered to be the dark recesses of my mind. 1 wish to assure him that 1 had read every word in his hook-rather in the line of duty than by deliberate choice-before 1 intervened in the earlier debate, even in May. 1 bave since refreshed my mind by looking tbrough it againbefore this debate. I shaII, however, confess to him qnite freelythat I am 59. 1 bave the impression that when one makes a citation from a book, one refers to passages tbat are illustrative of the comments one makes and relevant to the issue-without, of course, quotingout of conte& and ~observing the rules of fair debate. This is precisely what 1 did. both with regard to his book and to Portuguese constitutional documents. 60. The Fore@ Minister is aware that he has thoughtfully not provided an index to his book, SO that one cannot pick juicy bits from here and there to support an argument. One has to wade though nearly a11 of it. guided only by the chapter headings. Had there been an index, 1 would at least bave bad the opportunity of educating myself on the Portuguese distinction made between colonisation and colonialism. Perhaps 1 am wrong. There is nothing in the book to warrant the alphabetical listing of the word “colonizatien” in the special Portuguese sense. 61. 1 also humbly agree that 1 did not read a11 the earlier chapters before 1 came to the citation. 1 must interpose here that 1 did not read to the Council the first article in the Political Constitution dealing with the Territory of Portugal. Had 1 done SO, many eyebrows mighl bave been lifted, because, according to Article 1, the Territory of Portugal includes among its component Rates the following: vin Asia: the State of India”. India may, perhaps, consider this a constitutional aggression. but 1 am not inclined to promote any new controversy. 62. 1 am afraid he did not follow my statement the other day. and he has already given the reason: that he was in a daze as a result of my speech. And presumably by reason of the accidentalelectricpower failure that overtook us on Tuesday night, he was prevented from refreshing his memory by looking at the Verbatim record. Net that he would bave, but he might bave. 63. 1 am obliged to him for reading from an earlier chapter of his book of 1960 on his conception of what obligation, if any-in his view. none-flows from the Declaration under Article ‘73 of the Charter. It is precisely hecause of the interpretations that he has made in his own faveur in that book that 1 drew attention to the law-msking process reserved for the General Assembly through collective acts repeated by, and acquiesced in, sufficient numbers with suffitient frequency. 1 was quoting from a famous writer, but of course that book had not been written when Portugal became a Member of tbe Unlted Nations. 64. 1 should not occupy the time of the Council in answering the cheap gibe about Malaysia heing a comparative newcorner tc IJnitedNations affairs. Esen if one ignores the novel thesis that years of membership in the United Nations is byitself a claim to quality for one’s own opinions, perhaps 1 should remind him that Portugal entered the United Nations not much 65. However. 1 do-readily and withcut any reservations-glve him tbe precedence he deserves as a controversialist much ahead of me; indeed, 1 do not even stand in line behiud him. 1 do not regard it as tbe proper function d a member of the Security Council to indulge in unseemly controversies with one lnvfied tc take part in its debates. 1 uudersrand hls yerscnal feelings and the attitudes of bis Government. 1 ask for no more for my Government.

The position of rny delegation on tbis question is well known. We bave always maintalned that the Territories under Portuguese administration-Mozambique, Angola and Portugnese Guinea-although officially described by Portugal as ‘overseas Provincesn. are. in fact, Non-Self-Governlng Territories within the meaning of Chapter XI of the Charter. 67. Under Article 73 of the Charte$, Portugal, asthe Administering Authority. has certain obligations in connexion with the people of those Territories. One of these obligations-and perhaps the most important -is: “to develop self-govermnent, to take due account of the political aspirations of the pecples. and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions”. How far has Portugal fulfilled this obligation? That is th.e question at issue. 68. The Fore@ Minister of Portugal, in his lucid statement on 8 November 1965 [1253rd meeting], spoke at some length about the progress that the Portuguese Government has made in the Territories in the economic. health. cultural and educational fields. 1 think those are laudable achievements; but this is beside the point. We bave always maintained that the question is not whether the Portuguese Government has done good or bad in the Territories; rather, the question iS whether Portugal has done enough to accelerate the pace of political progress lu such a mariner as to enable the people under its administration to move towards self-determination. 69. The Fore@ Mlnister of Portugal, while conceding chat self-determination is a valid and realistic basis for the solution of the problem, bas nevertheless interpreted the term “self-determination” in a rather restricted mariner. According to him, “self-determination” implies the consent of the people to the form of govermnent and tbeir agreement to the structurc of the State and system of administration. This ~te~retZdio& 1 am afraid, ts not in accord with the h’derpretation given to the term “self-determination” by the majority of the Members of the United Nations. In the view of the majority of States Members, selfdetermination implies not cnly self-government, but also the possibility of eventual Independence. 70. For some years, the independent African St&& bave been demandlng that Portugal grant immediate 71. 1 bave no intention at this stage of entering into a discussion as to whether a threat to international peace and security does or does not exist. The fact is, however, that the situation is potentially explosive. The independent African States have made it abundantly clear that they are ready to lend every support to the people in the Territories to enable them to shake off Portuguese rule. Unless the United Nations, with the co-operation of the Government of Portugal, finds some acceptable solution within the terms of the Charter, there is no telling what tragtc fate may yet overtake Africa. 72. Once again. therefore, we appeal to Portugal to declare t!.s acceptance of the principle of selfdeterminatian, as defined by the United Nations. We believe that the mere acceptance of the principle in clear and unamhiguous ternis Will go a long way towards lessening the tension which now, unhappily, exists between Portugal and African States. 73. There is nothing wrong with the creation of an integrated, multiracial society. One may even say that the ideals behind it are very laudable. But we cannot agree to the praposal that the inhabitants of the Territoryhavenothing to sayabout it. The interests of the inhabitants are paramount. If they choose t, be integrated with Portugal, it is clearly their right 10 do 60. If they choose to lead an existence independent of Portugal, it is also their right. It is not for the Portuguese Government to make the decisiun for the people in the Territories, no matter how noble the motivation or how laudable the arguments. 74. The United Nations stands for peaceable change: and it is heartening to note that representatives of African States bave, in the present debate, shown moderation and reason. It is the hope of my delegation that the Portuguese Government Will be able to change its present hard and fast position. The least that Government cari do is to meet the African States half way. so that useful talks may be entered into between the African States and the Portuguese Government. T%e sooner this is done the better it Will be for a11 concerned. 75. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): 1 merelywish to reply on one point made by the representative of the Soviet Union in his speech yesterday. He said: “The bloc comprising Portugal, the Republic of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia is belng knit together with the connivance and participation of certain Western Powers. As a TASS statemeni po:nted out on 25 October. the United Kingdom Government ‘actually gave its blessing to the creation of the anti-African alliance of the Rhodesian racists with the Portuguese colonisers and the in-

The Soviet del@- gation feels oblig@d to speak in the exercise of its right of reply. Also. for reasons of tact, it wishes to exm@ss its views on the exilanations which bave iust be& given by the repr@se&tiv@ of the United &@a and bave to some @xtent been endorsed by the representative of the United Kingdom. It would be discourteous to ignore those stat@ments. particularly as tbe United King.dom representative, again on this occasion, has not b@@n foresaken by his traditional sens@ of humour. 78. For the benefit of Lord Caradon, let it be said that tbe reports of TASS deserve attention and are completely reliable because they are strictly factnal and are based on what actually happens and not on what is expressad in words. We must believe not words. but deeds and what actually takes place. If you wlsh to refute the facts glven in the TASS statements, then he good enough first of ail to turn to the source of Siose statements, to the situation as it is. And if you wish to argue against or to refnte what is sald anal to imply that someone is hmnfficiently informed or misinformed. then turn first of a11 tn vonr non S~U~C@S and to what is actually going on in the United Kingdom. You should not argue with us but with your own sources. You should refute yourself if there is sufficient basis for any refutation. 79. The representative of the United States made a klnd of attempt in his statement today to whitewash. as it were, the position of the United States. In doing 60, he made a number of statements ofa very general nature. He also made some remarks on the basic United States position as it is customarily stated by the United States representatives. He didnot, however, refute a Si”gle fact put forward here in the statements by the African representatives and by the Sovietdelegation on the substance of the matterunder discussion. 80. We should like to point out that our statement was very speclfic and well documented; the facts adduced concerning the l xe position of the United States and NATO were no\ b:-. ated by ns and were not figments of our imagination, They were not invented but were snpplied by eye-witnesses nnd by the reporters of the world Press. These widely-knownfacts speak for themselves; they cry out for attention. If the United States representative were to try to invalidate those facts. he would bave to refute, not our assertior& but his own politicians and statesmen. and th@ reports in the United States Press. But. as we bave seen, he did not venture to go that far. 82. Thus. for instance, on 4 October 1965, the Wnited Kingdom newspaper the Financial Times atated: aThere seems no doubt that Portuguese are using NATO arms in Mosambique.w If the United Kingdom representative does net agree with this fact-a fact taken from a United Kingdom source, which is. we repeat, the Financial Times of 4 October-tben I would ask him to he kind enough to refute this fact. There has SO far been no such refutation on the part of the United Kingdom authorities. 1s thisnot a further proof of the trne situation, further proof that this fact is in accc:d with the truc state of affairs? 83. It is very well known that the arms and ammunitien used by the Portuguese forces to destroy the African population are produced prlncipally in West Germany. the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy. The military aircraft used by the Portuguese Air Force are chiefly United States bombers and Wnited States jet fighters. If this is not the case, then statements should be made to that effect, but the United States authorities bave not made any suoh statements. There cari therefore hardly be room for any doubt that these facts are in accord with the truc situation. 84. As was stated by Mr. Cabrai, the leader of the national liberation movement of Portuguese Guinea, all types of weapons are being used against ths indigenous population of the Portuguese colonies. These are net mere words; they are actions, and they clearly reveal how the United States and the United Kingdom are supplylng the means of repression being used against the indigenous population of the colonies. The major part of these weapons-and in partioular grenades, Mauser rifles, Breda machine pistols, cannon, aircraft and napalm bombs-are net manufactured in Portugal but are received by that country from NATO. 85. 1 bave before me still more information on cooperation between the NATO Powers and the Portuguese colonialists inanother sphere. On 28 May 1965, the newspaper Naurumo. published in Swahili, reported that a further contingent of 650 Portuguese troops had arrived in 3o-called Portuguese Guinea. The newspaper stated that these uni& included West German military specialists who were in charge of the military training of Portuqese soldiers in Portuguese army camps. The article stated that these West German instructors had received orders to take an active part in the combat operations of the Portuguese punitive forces in Africa. It is also well known that Mr. Salazar a,d Chancellor Erhard recently concluded an agreement for the construction of new military hospitals in Portugal for Portuguese soldiers wounded in the colonial wars. 86. The Military Review, a NATO publication, renorted in Auaust 1964 that rifles in the Portuauese army “are being replaced by the West Germa: G-3 automatic rifle”. The journal unequivocally stated 88. Once agaln 1 qucte frcm the United Klngdcm newspaper the Flnancial Tlmes, although 1 do net kncw Lord Caradon’s attitude tc that newspaper. whether or not lie believes it. Be that as it may. we shall qucte what is published. Referring to thls passage in the statement of the Minister for Fcreign Affairs. it ccmmented: “This was an allusion to Portugsl’s struggle in Africa to retain Angola, Guinea and Mozambique.” 8% With regard to the recent loan of $20 million reoeived by Portugal. here. toc, we relied not on c”r imagination but on a document. In the report of the SpePe-ial Committee~ it is stated that towards the end Of th@ y@ar. Portugal, for the first time, raised a loan Of $29 million on the Unlted States market. 96. The Soviet delegation has felt cbliged to draw the Security Council’s attention once more, net tc words, but to facts, to reliable facts, to facts which bave been drawn by us frcm original sources. If anyone wishes tc dispute ‘hem, thenwe invite bim to do SO; let hlm dispute them, however, net with us, but with thcse who bave brcught them to light, those who bave published them. those who hear the responsibility for them. These facts indict the members of NATO. lncluding tbe United States of Amerlca and the United Kingdcm. If. at a later stage in the examination of this question. the need arises for clarifications in this regard, the Soviet delegaticn will net fail to prcvide them, and it reserves the right to revert to this question. 91. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): 1 do not wlsh to prolong this discussion. but 1 shcuidlike to reaffirm twc statements which 1 made on Tuesday. They were carefully prepared. and are exactly accurate. The first is that “no arms or equipment from the United Kingdom to n?@tropcRtan Portugal in recent years has been used by the Portuguese in their African Territories” [I254th meeting, para. 831. 92. Th@ second is in regard to NATO. and 1 said when 1 spcke befcre: “It is no part of the function and purpose of NATO to support the policy of the Portuguese Gcvernment in Africa, and neither as a 3/ Rewn of tbe Spsial Commiaee on *e Stuadcmwl* regard fo tbe fwdememdon of rhe Declaradon on tbe cranting of Independence 10 ChmIti CountiW ad Peoples: sec Gffkial Records of IIE ~eneral .4.=MlblY. nvendedl ses81m, Annexell, edddlnn ca agenda ,cem 23 (dcamenc A, v QS. 1 am glad to be able to reaffirm those statements and, in view of the fact that they bave been challenged, to state them again. They bave indeed been confirmed by the Foreign Minister of Portugal himself. 94. As for the quotations from the Finanoial Times, which my friend from the Soviet Union has read to us, 1 Will make a pact with him: f will not believe everything 1 read in the Financial Times if he Will net believe everything he is told by TAS.?.

Yesterday. the representative of the Soviet Union said: “In January 1965, the United States Governmeet granted Portugal a new loan of $20 million.” 1 said in my statement earlier today that this is not an accurate statement. 1 now repeat: there has been no such loan.

I repudiate, with the utmost indignation, the insinuation just made by the representative of the Soviet Union concerning the existence of German instructors, soldiers or officers in Portu@ese forces. There is not a single foreign soldier or officer or instructor-German or of any other nationality-in any part of the Portuguese forces whatsoever, either in metropolitan Portugal or overseas, no matter what TASS may report. 97. 1 should also Iike to add one remark. 1 shall try to reply later to the new remarks made with more irony than humour by the representative of Malaysia, if K find it worthwhile to do SO. At this stage 1 merely wish to make onepolnt. TherepresentativeofMalaysia was indeed kind enough to stress, to emphasise, that 1 am here in this Cou&l as an invited representative and that my status. therefore, is not as high nor as important or exalted as that of the rel resentative of Malaysia. 1 agree, and 1 am humbly grateful for the honour of the invitation; but that means that 1 am a gurst of the Seourity Council. 1 arr., theref0re.a guest of the delegation of Malaysia, and 1 do not feel that the representative of Malaysia is extending to me the hospitality normally accorded to guests.

From the statements just made by the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States of America, the anly conclusion which cari and which must be drawn is that not a single fact adduced against them by us and by the African delegations here intheSecurityCounci1 bas been refuted by them. 99. The statements which we bave just heard do not change the situation in any way. It is quite simple to understand tbe representatives of those countries. for they share the responsibility for the cruelty and bloodshed in the Portuguese colonial Territories 100. As fos the disbelief OF doubts regarding CJ~T information nnd sources, we repeat that cw sowces ets a.nd dooctunents. Tbat applies in TASSrepotis, ~th~bt6b~e concar ve. 101. m colleagues do mot believe tbeilovm sources. wby do they no& mnsider up organs whicb would refkct tbe truth. as TASS aoes, 5ml tl?en wcdd be ~10 need to resort to P1 kinds of SUb es 0-2 to bummr which in s that me is able to put a face on the matte~. The faot tbat the United Kiwgdam representatives bave net lest tbeir sense of l~umonr merely demonstrates tbeir dire plight. 103. Tbe PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): Since theere are no more speakers OR my list, H would ask the Council’s permission to make a brief statement BS representative of BQLlVL.4. 104. The present debate bas been distinguished by tbe elarity of tbe statements made by the members of the CoanciI and the representatives of the Governments imited to take part in tbe discussion. Tbis mkes it uanecessary for me to go into details aad P shah try to deal objectively with te gist of tbe p’oblem. iQ5. Tbe African peoples wbo live in tbe Territories mder Po ese administration are part of thegreat asti-colonialist movement, which has been reacbiag its elimax in reeent years, and they deemand complete freedom. h this they bave the sup~0x-t net only of thirlg;two Afriean nations, but also, it seems. of ail tbe free peoples of the earth. 106. Mg Govemnent wishes to state clearly that Bolivia is firmly and resolutely against any form of colonialism. The system of government and administration by foreign metropolitaa Powers bas corne to and end and, in my delegation% view, any attempt to euppsess the fight for fr?edorn ofthepeopkof Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese Guinea will be absolutely useless. 107. Ht would be suicic?al for Postugal net to understa.nid this irreversibk bistorical trend and tobecome kvolved in a bloody éragedy instead of accepting a broad and unconditional solution in keeping with the civilizing tradition of its past. 10s. We should Iike io associate ourselves witb ail those aromd this table who bave urged Portugal to be n%~r historica?!y aware and to offer the peoples of 109. We wish tc pay a tribute to the statements of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal to the effect that his Gcvernment has sought to improve the level of living of the peoples with whose fate we are concerned, but we would take the liberiy of telling him, respectfully, that that is not enough. We should even like to think that Portugal was seeking to provide an adequate solution to this problem in terms of national policy, that is to say, from the Portuguese point of view. That, in my Government% opinion, would also net be snfficient. Freedom by its very nature is indivisible and must be unconditional. Men and peoples bave known since the dawn of history that freedom is an inseparable part of their existence and their destiny on earth. It has taken seventy centuries for this elementary and basic right to be openly proclaimed and to gain universal recognition stronger than any oppression and more powerful than any fear. 110. If our era is outstanding in the annals of history for any reason, it Will be because it has fought, defeated and eradicated the cancer of colonialism. In my delegation’s view, therefore, hair-splitting on time-limits and plans for freedom is irrelevant. The only response is total, indivisible, and unconditional freedom. 111. lt was in Bolivia, the nation which 1 bave the honour to represent in the Council, and which was then known as Alto Perd, that thegreat ami-colonialist uprising began in Latin America in 1809. There was no kind of League of Nations in those days to serve the cause of freedom and we had to win ours weapon in hand. That anti-colonial uprising was net a series of sporadic events occurring in the different territories: there were intellechml and political leaders who served the continentai cause of a free America considered as a whole. There were auxiliary armies which crossed frontiers to hein their brothers in the fight. There was unity of thought and action. There was a common purpose and a single victory, which led to the birth of twenty republics. 112. It is inevitable that Africa Will do the same, unless Portugal provides the civilised solution that still at the eleventh hour seems to bs within its power. And that meane open and total war, with ail its tragic implications. 1 am net, of course, hoping for that but drawing attention to an imminent danger, whict ‘t is the duty of a11 of us to bear in mind. 113. The Security Council, fulfilling lts basic duty of keeping the peace, bas been unanimous in the appeals it has addressed to Portugal-in one tone oranotherin its efforts tc avert a tragedy. Sc far as its responsibilities are concerned, I should like to repeat what 114. Spealdng now as PRESIDENT. 1 w:sh to inform the members of tbe Council tbat this morning, 1 received a Ietter from the representative of the United m in the Council, requesting an urgent meeting to consider tbe situation resultina from recent events in Soukhem Rhodesiâ 115. For some heurs I bave been in constant touch witb my colleagues concerning the most suitable date and time to hold this meeting, which 1 consider truly important. Although some delegations bave declared themselves in favour of a meeting tomorrow morning at 10.30 a.m., no final decision has yet been *aken. because not ail members of the Council bave replied to my inquirles. 1 shall inform the Council in due course of whatever decision may be taken. 116. 1 also wish to mention the fa& that the Council Will bave to consider the possibility of holding a meeting soon to continue the debate on the item on today’s agenda. This is a decision which Will depend, to a certain extent, on what we decide about the meeting on Southern Rhodes& 117. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): It would be tbe wisb of my delegation naturally to meet the wishes of the members of the Council in this matter of Southern Rhodesia. As you said, Mr. President. 1 reported to you at the earliest opportunity thia morning the events which had then been reported to us and 1 asked for an urgent meeting of the Council. The United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hopes to corne to New York and is, indeed. on bis way to New York at this moment with the intention of speaking for my Government on this most important matter. 118. It had been, as 1 say, oui‘ original intention to ask for a meeting of the Council at the earliest possible moment; but it seems to me that since the Foreign Secretary wilI be maklng a statement on behalf of my Government, and brining with him the decisions which bave been taken by my Government, it would be well that the meeting should be arranged at a time when he cari make that announcement to us and speak on our behalf. 119. 1 would therefore suggest that. since it wouldbe in the convenience of ail members of the Council tbal 121. Consequently, Mr. President, 1 think that the decision which you bave suggested will best suit all the members of the Council; namely, tbat, if the situation arising out of the meetings and discussions wbich are currently proceedlng warrants an emergency meeting of the Council, you wlllbe SO informed, whereupon you Will lnform the members of the Council and you Will consult them to see whether they think it advisable to meet immediately. They cari do SO without being bound by any decision taken this morning. That is why 1 believe that the date of the Council’s next meeting should be left open for the present.

The Soviet delegation fully supports the approach suggested by the representative of the Ivory Coast to the solution of the question as to when a meeting of the Council should be convened in connexion with the critical situation which has resulted from the latest developments in Southern Rhodesia. 123. We consider that you, MI. President, as you yourself suggested at the outset, should follow the usual procedure for the solution of such matters. It would hardlv be useful to continue the discussion of this matter”now, particularly in view of the fact that the representative of the Ivory Coast has informed us that a group of delegations has been dealing with this matter since the morning and is holding the appropriate consultations. As may be assumed from the statement of the Ivory Coast representative, the outcome of those consultations Will be some specific decision which Will no doubt be brought to the President’s attention. 174. At that time. on the strength of ail the factors involved and after consultations with members of the Council, as accords with the generally accepted practice and the provisional rules of procedure, you Will decide the exact time when you wish to convene a meeting of the Security Council, with full regard, of course, for the great urgency and importance of the events which bave takenplace in Southern Rhodesia. 125. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): 1 merely say that. 1 should wish to accept the views of the majority of the Council in a matter of this kind. Nevertheless, 1 think 1 might also add that 1 believe that the statement that my Foreign Secretary wishes to make in this Council Will be a factor in a situation of tbe representative of the Ivory Coast-are net necessarily contradictory. 127. The representative of the United Klngdom has presented the reasons why he would Hke to bave a meeting tomorrow mornlng, and 1 thlnk such a meeting would be very important to ail of us. 1 am sure we would ail want to hear tbe statement of the Foreign Secrstary of tbe United Klom, which is tbe most directly concerned party. At any rate. if we should in principle decide to meet tomorrow morning, and net later than tomorrow morning, that would. to my mind, Ieave open the possibility of the President mesnwblle consultlng witb members on an earlier, meeting, if a strong desire for such a meeting is expressed by one side or tbe other. ï thought that. perhaps, we could in this way combine the two suggestions.

1 think it is clear that every member of this Council is very gravely concerned by the urgent mattercalled tc our attention bv the renresentative of the United Klngdom. 1 wouldhope thai we would a11 be in agreement tbat it is of the utmost relevaime to what we Will have to discuss for us to hear the Fore@ Secretary of the United Klngdom. We think that this reason should commend itself tc ail of us and that we should glve thoughtful consideration to the request of the representative of the Unlted Kingdom as to the timing of the meeting. 12% 1 think there is nopurpose or intent on anybody’s part to delay consideration of this matter. There is no lack of the sense of urgency on the part of any member of the Council, no lack of concern. To me, the matter is a very simple crie in terms ofprocedure. The most helpful basis for oui‘ consideration of the matter is for us to be advised, and to be advised authoritatively at first hand, as to the position of the United Kingdom in the matter, SO that. in the light of the understanding of the position that we may then ail bave, we cari thoughtfully address ourselves to what the Council ougbt to do in the matter. It is for this reason that my delegation supports the suggestion made by the representative of the United Kingdom.

The matter which we are about to take up is, 1 believe, extremely serious for each one of us and especially for Africa. Consequently there should be no disagreement among us concerning theee two questions of procedure and date. 1 bave already said that the proposa1 that the Council should meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m., taking into account the arguments advanced by the United Kingdom representative. was reasonable. Nevertheless, certain groups are now deliberating and. given the seriousness of the situation, they should not be deprived of the right tc ask the 131. 1 think that each and every member of the Council is entitled. if he has facts to put before the Co;mcil, to request an immediate meeting, In ac- Cordance with its practice. the Council must be able-as 1 believe has always been the case hithertoto acquiesce in such requests. That is why, although we do net oppose the suggestion, we should like any Member of the United Nations and any group of States to retain the possibility of bringing the matter before the President and requesting an immediate meeting of the Council.

1 wish to state that 1 am treating this as an emergency and am ready to attend a meeting at any time the Council wishes. 133. 1 think the representative of the Netherlands has made a very sensible and practical point. There is no reason why the Council should not decide to meet tomorrow morning at 10.30 to hear the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, leaving the President free to convene the Council this afternoon or this evening if that is justified by events or requested. 134. 1 therefore move that the Council should decide to meet tomorrow morning at 10.30 to hear the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom and that it should authorize the President to convene the Council this afternoon or this evening if events SO require or if any member of tte Council SO requests. 135. Lord CARADCN (United Kingdom): I am sure that my delegation and tny country are the first to recognize the very great gravity of te situation with which we are concerned, and certainly we would not refute the words that bave been said hy the representative of the Ivory Coast. 1 would beperfectIy content, in the spirit in which he has spoken to us, to accept what he proposed, which was supported by the representative of Uruguay. 136. 1 understand that the wish is tbat we should meet tomorrow morning at the time proposed, suhject always to your decision, Mr. President. after further consultation with the members of this Council. 1 hope that when that decision is taken-if there is an application-the factors that 1 havepointedout willbe borne in mind. 1 am sure they Will be borne in mind.

If there are no other speakers who wish to take the floor on this matter, 1 feel it tny duty to thank a11 members of the Council. because, after this interesting exchange of ideas, there seems to be generalapproval of the view 1 originally expressed. 135. The meeting of the Council to deal with the state of affairs resulting from the situation in Southern Rhodesia isprovisionally scheduledfor 10.30 tomorrow morning. If in the meantime there are new develop-

1 should like to point out tbat according to tbe provisional rules of procedure the question of convening a meeting of the Càuncil to consider a new matter is decided by the President of the Council andby him alone. The discussion whicb has just taken place of when the Council should be convened has no forma1 validity. Strictly speaking, no meeting of the Council, at whichwe coulci discuss something in the way in which we bave been doing. has been specially convened to discuss this new question. We refrained from making these purely procetiral remarks earlier solely because of the urgency of the situation, which impelled a11 of us who bave taken part in thisdiscussion to express our views on the subject. In order that a precedent may not be created for the future and that the situation in which we now find ourselves may be clirified. 1 must point out that our discussion has, strictly speaking. been nothing more than a preliminary and private exchange of views. Al1 this has tsken place at a meeting of the Security Council on another matter which has net yet been adjourned and, consequently, will be officially reproduced in the record of the present meeting. 140. Thus, ïvIr. President. we understand your statement to mean that. unless you decide otheraise, you intend to declare that the Sewrity Council has been convened for tomorrow. Weunderstand your statement only in this preliminary sense. without any finaldecision having been made that might subsequently be attributed to the Council, which, by reason of tbe ciroumstances 1 hme just explained, bas not in fact decided and cannot decide this question. Only on this understanding of tbe present situation, 1 think, could this excbange of views be ended, enabling you. Mr. President. in view of the circumstances to which t’le representative of the Ivory Coast referred. subsequently to decide the question of exactly when you Will convene a meeting of the Security Council. It seems to me tbat the question migbt be regarded as iülly discussed at this stage and tbat the meeting might be adjourned.

Since there are no other speakers on this subject. tbe matter is decided in the way 1 indicated earlier. The Council Will meet tomorrow morning at 10.30, unless unforeseen circumstances oblige the President to advance the time of meeting. The meeting rose at 1.15p.m. UOm in U.N. mice $Us. 1.w (or equlva1enr in otixr currm*es)