S/PV.1337 Security Council

I give the floor to the representative of Algeria. 4. The Security Council had to examine this SeriOUS problem on an earlier occasion, at the beginning Of this year. Today, it is again called upon to act. My delegation would like, in the course of this debate, and in the light of recent developments, to draw the Councills attention to a number of facts andto explain its feelings concerning the proposals advanced by the United Kingdom to solve the problem. 5. Ever since the unilateral declaration of indù- pendence by Ian Smith, a11 countries which desire to work for the good of the world community have recognized that the situationinSouthernRhodesia is a threat to international peace and security. At the same time, the policy adopted by the United Kingdom to put an end to this latent source of conflagration has failed. Mr, Brown, who is the British Government’s most authoritative spokesman on the matter, has said SO himself. The problem therefore remains unchanged. Indeed, the danger of an explosion isimminent. 6. In our view, only effective action, primarily by the United Kingdom with appropriate support from the States Members of our Organization, cari promote a solution which Will be inkeeping with the aspirations of the people of Rhodesia and with world opinion. Unless there is such action, the United Kingdom Government Will only confirm that it intends to prolong its delaying tactics at the expense of 4 million Africans. If the Security Council were to endorse this policy, it would then share responsibility for it, thereby permitting the continuation of a policy which has already reached an impasse. 7. The United Kingdom Government is quite aware of this. Its aim is to obtain the Councilts authorization to continue its policy, even though it may have to corne back later and admit, as it is doing now, chat the sanctions it had called for have failed. The United Nations would then inherit a situation whioh had become hopeless, The various stages in this crisis assure us of that. 8. When the racist minority unilaterally declared independence in November 1965, the United Kingdom Government called for preliminary measures which, SO it was said, would be suffioient to cal1 Mr, Smith to order. At the time, the delegation of Algeria, like those of other African States, expressed its concern and its scepticism at such measures. However, in spite of Africa’s warnings, the United Kingdom and certain other members of the Security Council argued that that was the most appropriate way of asserting the rights of the Zimbabwe people. Even more recently, when this so-called sanctions policy had clearly failed, and the need for stronger measures to isolate the Smith regime was becoming obvious, the United Kingdom Government, again supported by the same States members of the Security Council, continued to refuse to heed the African proposals, which, in our view, 10. What is more, Smith is not afraidof the measures whhich the United Kingdom is endeavouring to induce the Council to accept. 1 shouldlike to stress that point, for during the secret talks in Gibraltar, Smith, after t,alking with Prime Minister Wilson and knowing the consequences of refusing the British proposnls, rejectccl a solution which, by the way, deliberately ignored the aspirations of millions of Africans. 1.1. How are we to interpret that rejection, whichwas made in full knowledge of the facts, and how then are we to explain Smith’s attitude? As we see it, the answer is quite simple, Since he has been told what reprisais to expect from the Uuited Kingdom if he refused, Smith knows thnt they are quite inadequate lo overcome the obstinacy of the racist minority.It is surely on that premise that Smith took up the challenge. 1% is reasonable therefore for us to suggest that the economic sanctions advocatecl by the United Kingdom Government are net taken nt a11 seriously even by Ihose ta whom they are applied. How then cari we be asked to put 311~ stock in these proposais? How cari it even be suggested that the applicationof such sanctions would cause the collapse of the minority régime? Smith himself does net believe it. 12. Why is the United Kingdom Government still today trying to lead us down a blind alley, along a course which it already knows is doomed to failure?Why Will it not learn from the lessons of 3 year’s experience and act accordingly? While the Salisbury régime is becoming stronger ancl being openly supported by the South Rfrican minority and the Portuguese Government, London is doing its utmost to defend a policy which is daily shown to be more and more mistaken. 13. The United Kingdorn Government knows, moreover, that unless the measures proposed are applied universally they Will have no effect on the Smith régime, It knows that, despite any decision this Council may take, the South African authosities Will continue to supply Iihodesia with the goods which are vital for its economy. It also knows that Portugal Will spare ilo effort to enable Smithonce again to withstand these new measures successfully. 14. Lastly, as Mr. George Brown, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, implied in this CouaCil on 8 December [1331st meeting], the United Kingdom “Convinced that the programme of sanctions against the British colony of Southern Rhodesia as conceived and directed by the British Government Will not and cannot bring down the illegal régime at Salisbury”, The second paragraph reads: “Strongly condemns the United Kingdom for her refusa1 to crush the Southern Rhodesian rebel régime and repeats its demands to the United Kingdom Government to bring about the immediate downfall of that régime by any means, including the use of force”. 15. It is easy to understand the scepticism and concern of the African States at the British attitude, for the United Kingdom Government bas presentednothing new to allay our fears. On the contrary, what was predicted and affirmed in November 1965 and again more recently last May seems to be coming true. The United Kingdom Government is acting solely in its own interests and at the expense of the interests of the African people of Rhodesia. It is bent on sparing the Smith régime and its partners SO as to maintain and safeguard its strategic and economic interests. What it is doing now is detesmined by the same motives, If the Council agrees to promote such aims it Will share responsibility for the consequences with the United Kingdom. What is more, it Will be helping to permit the deterioration of a situation which is already explosive and which, in the near future, may well degenerate into a racial war encompassing the whole of the African continent. 16. In announcing its intention to settle the problem by peaceful means, the United Kingdom Government seems to be ignoring the nature of the colonial régime in Southern Rhodesia. We know that it is a settler colony. There has never been a case in history in which such a régime has been able to avoid choosing between multiracial integration or racial conflagration. We know that settler colonialism means total alienation. It is sheer violence to its very roots, violence in its impact on an indigenous society. 17. Attempts have been made, are still being made, and may be made again, to deal with problems of this kind by peaceful means. Since the end of the Second World War, neither in Palestine nor in hlgeria nor in Kenya, nor today in Southern Rhodesia and the Portuguese colonies, nor tomorrow in South Africa, hasit been possible, nor Will it ever be possible, to avoid choosing between coexistence through integration and 18. We earnestly hope that the members of the Council, before deciding what position they Will adopt, Will taire into account the views of the African States. As the African Heads of State have pointed out, the situation in Southern Rhodesia may well plunge Africa into the chaos of a racial war. The responsibility of this Council is now a11 the greater, because the day of reckoning is not too far off. Depending on what the Council’s decision contains, Africn Will move towards either an era of stability or one of profound upheaval. In any case, the African States Will spare no effort to enable the people of Zimbabwe and those of South Africa and the Portuguese Territories to recover their dignity and to attain their freedom nnd sovereignty.

As is well known, this is not the first time that the Security Council has taken up the question of Southern Rhodesia on the grounds that the situation in that country has become increasingly dangerous. More than a year ago, as a reSUlt of the seizure of power by a racist.clique with the obvious connivance, and indeed the direct support, of London, yet another hot-bed of racism emerged in southern Africa, threateningthe freedomof the peoples of Africa and endangeringpeace not only on the African continent. 20. In what direction have events been developing since then and why is it that, in spite of the many decisions taken by United Nations bodies, including the Security Council, the situation in Southern Rhodesia not only failed to improve but the questionof Southern Rhodesia has in fact become even mose acute and urgent? 22. The oreation and consolidation of the racist hot-bed in Southern Rhodesia are the direct result of the neo-colonialist policy pursued by the United Kingdom, which is striving by every possible means to preserve its imperialist interests and to prote& the positions of the major monopolies in the southernpart of the African continent. It was precisely in accordance with this policy that the baneful seeds of racism were sown in Southern Rhodesia and the racist forces of misanthropy were nurtured there. 23. In their statements in the Security Council the representatives of African countries have provided incontrovertible evidence of this and have clearly exposed the true nature of London’s colonialistposition. 24. There cari be no doubt who is responsible for the fact that racist forces have not only usurped power in Southern Rhodesia but have for a whole year been flouting the human rights and dignity of millions of hfricans in the most provocative manner. There cari be no two opinions on the question who is responsible for this. It is perfectly obvious that responsibilityfor the situation that has arisen rests above a11 with the United Kingdom-the Power which has for decades exercised colonial control over Southern Rhodesia and has by its entire policy paved the way for the domination of that country by white racists. 25. We consider it necessary to stress once again that London and its ruling circles bear the main responsibility for a11 the crimes and evil deeds of colonialism and racism in Southern Rhodesia and for the tragedy and suffering of the Zimbabwe people. The United Kingdom also bears full responsibility for the maintenance of power in the racist régime in Southern Rhodesia. 26. The roots of the United Kingdom policy of protecting the racist minority régime in Southern Rhodesia are to be found not only in the traditional links which exist between the white settlers in this Territory and the population of the metropolitan country. These roots go deeper, and lie rather in the realm of finance and economios, They are connected with the selfish interests of the big United Kingdom andunited States capitalist companies operating in Southern Rhodesia and of large-scale capital in the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of South Africa and certain other countries. As a result of the basic research undertaken by the Committee of Twenty- Four, u this is now being proved absolutely beyond doubt by the facts. Here are someof the facts. Investments by United Kingdom monopolies in the Southern Rbodesian economy amount to E200 million, while South African companies have invested ‘E’75 million 1/ SpeclaJ Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 28. Yet, if one were to listen to the representatives of the United Kingdom Government, it might seem lhat the United Kingdom has done and is continuing to do everything in its power, as they say, to lead Southern Rhodesia along the path of self-determination and the protection of the legal rights of the indigenous population of the Territory. The United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. George Brown, particularly in his recent statement in the Security Council [1331st meeting], has assured US that this is SO. But a glance at the facts Will seveal a completely dtfferent picture. We should like to ask what London has done since the forces of racism seized power in Youthern Rhodesia and the United Kingdom Government declared Mr, Smith to be a rebel? What practical action has the United Kingdom takento bring the racist régime in Salisbury under control? 29. Objective information shows that the Unit& Kingdom has embarked upon a course of prOteCting and appeasing the racist clique for reasons that have nothing in common with the interests of the Zimbabwe people. This course in regard to the queStion of Southern Rhodesia is being disguised in London by misleading diplomatie manoeuvres designed to camouflage the true nature of United Kingdom policy towards Southern Rhodesia. 30. 1s it not remarkable that, while the United Kingdom claims to condemn the racists, it is by itS actions strengthening their positions? While assuring the 31. Instead of taking effective steps to remove the ?XICiSts from power, the United Kingdom has entered into collusion with the Salisbury régime, clearly seeking to find some common ground for agreement behind the back of the Zimbabwe people. 32, AS long ago as November last year, the Security Council adopted a resolution cailing upon the United Kingdom Government Vo take a11 other appropriate measures which would prove effective in eliminating the authority of the usurpers and in bringing the minosity régime in Southern Rhodesia to an immediate end” [resolution 217 (1965)]. In addition, the Security Council called on the United Kingdom to take immediate measures to allow the Africans in Southern Rhodesia to determine their own future consistent with the Declaration on the Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 33. It was quite clear, even at that time, that decisive measures should be taken against the forces of racism without delay before the Smith régime had time to consolidate itself. However, as everyoneis now aware, London did not comply with the Security Councilfs decisions. Moreover, it was precisely the United Kingdomls position which enabled the Southern Rhodesian racists to gain time and stablize their criminal r Cgime . 34. Though the Umted Kingdom refused to adopt effective measures for eliminating the authority of the racists in Southern Rhodesia, it tried at the same time to create the impression that London was taking certain steps and that something was being done to solve the Southern Rhodesian problem. Everyone Will remember how, in the Security Council and other TJnited Nations bodies, United Kingdom diplomacy tried to create the impression that by limited economic measures, and by xestricting trade with Southern Rhodesia, the United Kingdom could easily tope with the racist régime. There is hardly any need to mention that this was a kindof commercial approach, an attempt on the part of London merchants to reduce the whole problem to a price-iist of colonial goods. But the country’s political problems, the ernancipation of the oppressed African population, and the cessation of the racist rebellion in Southern Rhodesia were painstakingly avoided and deliberately ignored by London. 35. Next, we were assured it was only a matter Of weeks, not even months, until the Smith régime fell. However, the racist Smith régime is still in poWt?r and is oppressing millions of Africans with even greater savagery. London’s diplomats are now once again carrying out a diversionary manoeuvre by con- 36. Yet what is this other than the Lnited Kingdom’s old line of pandering to the racists in Southern Rhodesia? And the question has been quite rightly asked here: how long Will this dangerous gamble continue, this gamble with the fate of a whole people which is being ruthlessly oppressed by racists and foreign monopolies? 3’7. As the representatives of the African countries have already demonstrated in the Council, the economic measures which the United Kingdomhas been pressing for were not from the very outset genuinely intended to do any serious damage to the economic position of the racist régime. Because the limited economic sanctions have been sabotaged by South African racism and the Portuguese colonizers, who openly support the Salisbury régime, they have proved to be completely ineffective and have been converted into a shameful ttcomedy of sanctions”, as they have been justly described by world political opinion. 38. In April-May of this year, when it had become quite olear that the economic sanctions adopted against the racists were useless and were being violated by Portugal and the Republic of South Africa, London categorically refused to accept a proposa1 made by the African countries in the Security Council to the effect that comprehensive economic sanctions binding on a11 Members of the United Nations should be applied to Southern Rhodesia and that decisive steps should be taken against countries which, in violationof United Nations resolutions calling for an economic boycott of Southern Rhodesia, are assisting the Salisbury régime -that is, particularly against Portugal and theRepublic of South Africa. 39. With Washington’s support London, anxious for the welfare of Portuguese colonialism and the South African racists, undermined the adoption by the Security Council of far-reaching and effective economic measures against the Salisbury régime, 40. At the same time, London made another hypocritical manœuvre in the United Nations. In dramatic tones, the United Kingdom called for a Security Council decision banning the delivery of oil to Southern Rhodesia by sea throughtheMozambicanportofBeira, although oil was beingdeliveredinunlimitedquantities to the racist régimo by rail and roadfrom the Republic of South Africa. On that occasion, too, the United Kingdom and the United States once again came to the defenoe of Portugal and the Republio of South Africa, which are openly and with impunity sabotaging the implementation of the economic boycott against the Salisbury régime, and are maintaining eCOnOmiC relations with it and providing it with financial and economic assistance. 41. During the six months that have passed since the Council considered the problem of SouthernRhodesia, it has become apparent that the so-called eCOnOmic 42, It is against this background that one shouldconsider also the fact that the United Kingdom Government is unwilling to use the means at its disposa1 to liquidate the racist clique by force, in spite of the dematids of the African count;ries, supported by the majority of States Members of the United Nations. In his recent statement in the Security Council Mr. George Brown, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for E’oreign Affairs once again declared that the United Kingdom Government was unwilling to take extreme measures in order to put down the rebellion, and he referred in that connexion to humanitarian considerations and the dangers of a11 kinds which might be involved in escalating the conflict. 43. As a result, the Salisbury régime has once again been given an assurance-this time “at the highest Ievel” as one might say-that it cari go on committing outrages and humiliating millions of Africans. It Will get away with everything scot-free and London Will not take any really effective steps to restrain the arrogant racist clique and cal1 it to order. In this connexion, we fully share the view expressed in the statement by the Foreign Minister of Zambia, Mr. Kapwepwe [1332nd meeting], that the UnitedKingdom’s refusa1 to take steps to liquidate the racist régime, by force if necessary, constitutes direct encouragement of, and complicity with the racist forces. 44. Encouraging and pandering to the Smith regime is indeed tlleoiy way of describing this policy of the United Kingom-a Power that fias an enormous network of military bases and armed forces in Africa, the Arab East and Asia. These forces have been used on many occasions with incredible mobility and are indeed being used at present to implement the “East of Suez” imperialist policy of oppressing by force of arms-and not by a so-called partial economic embargo-peoples fighting against colonialism for their national liberation, 45. Thus, London cannot complain that it does not have the power and the opportunity. In that case, then, why did it have to appenl to the United Nations? 46. Instead of taking effective steps ta liquidate the rebellious racist r&gime in Southern Rhodesia, the United Kingdom-as has been convincingly demonstrated in the statements by the representatives of Mali, Zambia, Senegal, Algeria and other African countries-has embarked on a course of appeasing the 47. 1s it; not typical that nol a single one of the six principles in the United Kingdom programme refers either to the granting of genuine independence to the Zimbabwe people, or to the liquidation of the antipopular régime of the white racists, or to universal suffrage for Africans? These principles refer only to certain vague steps to be taken in the direction of some possible future progress whose exact nature has not been defined at ail. In addition, the intention is to conclude an agreement with the racist forces in Southern Rhodesia and not with the Zimbabwe people. 48. The Smith régime, finding that it cari act with impunity and relying on the support of the alliance of colonialists and racists in southern Africa, has àecided that the proposed deal does not offter it enough advantages and has rejected London’s proposals; and herein lies the political significance of the events preceding the United Kingdom’s new appeal to the Security Council. 49. One might have thought that, after these events, there would at last have been some change in London’s Policy on Southern Rhodesla and that; the United Kingdom would at last have heeded the demands of the independent countries of Africa and the will of the overwhelming majority of Members of the United Nations. Unfortunately, this has not happened. The briefcase of the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who came to New York toparticipate g See Rhodesia-Proposais for a Settlement 1966, London, Her tijesty’s Stationery Office, Cmnd. 3159. 50. On the one hand, in his statement in the Security Council [ 1331st meeting], the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary asserts that as a result of the action taken by the racist rebels Vhe dangers to peace and stability in the whole region of central and southern Africa are acute”; that there is 1’. , . a situation fraught with great and growing danger of inter-racial strife and bloodshed throughout southern African; and that the ‘1. . . Council cannot permit the situation to deteriorate furthern. And we must say that the majority of the members of the Security Council share this view. 51. On the other hand, initsdraftresolution [S/7621], the United Kingdom 1s proposing measures which in fact are not and could not be designed to eliminate the serious threat to peace, the growing danger of bloodshed or a further deterioration in the situation. 52. And yet, in Africa and throughout the world, there is a growing wave of indignation at the way ruling circles in London are protecting and pandering to the racist forces in Southern Rhodesia. Striking proof of this indignation was provided by sesolution 2138 (XXI) adopted by the General Assembly inoctober thisyear, which resolutely condemns any arrangement reached between the United Kingdom and the Smith régime to the detriment of the independence of the Zimbabwe people. 53. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the United Kingdom Government has deoided to appeal to the Security Council not for ca-operationinliquidating the illegal racist régime but in order to use the United Nations to exert some kind of pressure on that régime in the hope of forcing it thereby to llswalIowll the neo-colonialist decision based on the six United Kingdom principles. Thus, London is attempting f;o drive the United Nations along a deliberately false course. 54. ht the present time, when it is clearer than ever that resolute and effective steps must be taken to liquidate the racist rebellion in Southern Rhodesia without delay, the United Kingdom has once again corne to the United Nations and is asking it to approve restrioted half-measures of an economic nature. The proposa1 now is for selective economic sanctions which would amount to prohibiting the import of a certain group of goods produced inSouthernRhodesia. 55. We have heard once again the pathetic declamation of a limited list of colonial products on which an embargo would allegedly have the effect of impoverishing the abundant rations of the Salisbury régime. But there is one stsange point. According to the London proposal, trade in such a strategic material as tobacco 56, It is not difficult to see that the kid-glove sanctions prOpOSed by the United Kingdom are nothing more than camouflage for a further strengthening of the forces of the racist régime in Southern Flhodesia. EVeryone will remember that the voluntary economic sanctions preuiously applied against the racist régime were easi.ly violated owing to the close CO-operationbetween that régime, the Portuguese colonialists and the racists of the Republic of South Africa, with whose help Southern Rhodesia managed to export its products virtually without any difficulty. It is well known that Southern Rhodesia had no particular difficulty in finding purchasers for its chromium, iron ore, meat, sug’ar and even tobacco, which the United Kingdom Government had at one time SO fervently hoped that it wou.ld be difficult to sell. But what guarantee is there that: a11 this Will not continue indefinitely? 57. Further, the United Kingdom proposal-and this is very typical-altogether evades the question of banning imports to Southern Rhodesia. The United Kingdom draft is also silent on thequestionof supplying Southern Rhodesia with oil and petroleum products, wit:hout which it is quite impossible for any oountry’s economy to function normally in modern times. 58. There is no need for us to analyse in detail the arguments advanced by United Kingdom diplomats in favour of taking further limited economic action aga.inst the racists in Salisbury. The ForeignMinister of Zambia has already demonstrated that the London representative’s attempts to justify his objections to comprehensive economic sanctions by feigning concern for the eoonomic welfare of other countries are completely unsound. 59.. In faot, this would mean that the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia would remain in being for a long time to corne, with a11 its grievous consequences for the economy of Zambia and other African countries, which are obliged to pay the penalty for the Unitet’ Kingdomts inactivity and its appeasement of the racist régime. 60. It is significant that the United Kingdom draft resolution makes no mention whatever of the need for granting independence to the Zimbabwe people without delays of any kind, and for taking steps which would genuinely ensure the liquidation of the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia. 61., We have also heard a statement by the United States representative, who said he was indignant at the actions of the racists in SouthernRhodesia. In this connexion, we should like to ask a question. 1s there any truth in the statement published in The New York Times theother day, on 11 December 1966, to the effect that in 1966-that is, after the adoption of the Weilknown Security Council decisions calling for a boycott of the racist Smith régime-Southern Rhodesia’s exports to the United States increased considerablyfrom $15.4 million in 1965 to $19 million in 19661 63. The fact that the racists of the Republic of South Africa do not conceal their sympathy for their ideological allies in Salisbury and are openly SUppOrting them, thereby defying the United Nations and a11 freedom-loving peoples, is already well known. It is no secret, either, that the Republic of South Africa is assisting the Smith régime. But there are some other States which, while broadcasting their intention of implementing the United Nations decisions on the Southern Rhodesian question, are in reality doing the exact tipposite. 64. In this connexion, we should like to recall that in May this year the United Nations was informed that the li’ederal Republic of Germany had placed an embargo on some important commodities which had been imported from Southesn Rhodesia. However, as cari be seen from the information published in the above-mentioned issue of The New York Times, West Germany is by its actions supporting the racists in Southern Rhodesia, since in 1966 it not only failed to reduce its imports from that country but actually increased them. 65. This, and not the picture which the United Kingdom representative has tried to Paint, is the truc state of affairs. 66. The future development of events in Southern Rhodesia Will depend to a large extent on whether London intends to go on disregarding the fate of millions of Africans in order to satisfy the selfish interests of monopoly companies which axe enriching themselves by exploiting the Territory, or whether ehe combined forces of a11 those who support the just cause of the Zimbabwe people-and are in favaur of their freedom and independence-will force the United Kingdom to seconsider its policy on the Southern Rhodesian question. 67. Needless to say, until the people of theTerritory have achieved real independence, no steps taken by the United Nations Will or cari release the United iingdom, as administeringpower, from its obligations towards Southern Rhodesia. 68. The United Nations, expressing the Will of the independent countries of Africa and the Will of the majority of its Members, has at the present session adopted a resolution calling upon the United Kingdom to make a radical change in its position on the Rhodesian question-t0 stop admonishing the Southern Rhodesian racists and abandon its preparations for another deal with them, and to adopt a firm line to curb the racist r&ime. 70. The Soviet delegation fully supports the just demands of the African countries for rapid and effective measures to solve the Southern Rhodesianproblem in the interests of the Zimbabwe people and in the interests of a11 peoples who are fightlng against the colonialist and racist yoke in Africa. These demands were reaffirmsd in the resolution on Southern Rhodesia which was adopted unanimously at the Assernbly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of’ African Unity at Addis Ababa in November this year, In their statements in the Security Council [ 1336th and 1335th meetings respectively] the repregentatives of India and Pakistan-two influential Asian oountries-have demonstrated that resolute and effective measures-and if necessary the use of force-are the only means of putting an end to the protracted drama of the long-suffering Zimbabwe people. The racist minority régime must be removed from power without delay, and arrangements must be made for the unconditional implementation in regard to Southern Rhodesia of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 71. A democratic and genuinely African programme for the settlement of the Rhodesian question has already bcen drawn up, has been approved by the United Nations, and is now widely known. It provides for the immediate repeal of the racist 1961 Constituti.on, the release of political prisoners, universal elections on the basis of “one man, one vote” and the immediate transfer of power to a majority governmen” which expresses the Will of the Southern Rhodesian people. This programme, and not the notorious colonialist “six principles “, cari guarantee a solution to the Southern Rhodesian problem in the interests of the 2,imbabwe people. 72. But what should the Security Council do in the circumstances which bave arisen? First of all, the Council must cal1 upon the United Kingdom to comply strictly and promptly with thedecisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly concerning the liquidation of the racist rebellion in Southcrn Rbodesia. The Security Council must reaffirm the inalienable right of the Zimbabwe people to freedom and indefbendence, and the legitimacy of their struggle for the exercise of this right. In addition, the Council must oall upon a11 States to provide a11 possible moral and rnaterial support to the Zimbabwe people in their legitimate struggle to overthrow the illegal racist rkgime and to gain their freedom nnd independence. 74. The Soviet delegation would like to state that, in its view, the amendments to the United Kingdom draft resolution proposed by the delegations of Mali, Nigeria and Uganda in document S/7630, are a step in the right direction and their adoption would substantially alter the United Kingdom draft. 75. We also believe that the Security Council should take appropriate steps against States which maintain economic relations with the Southern Rhodesian racist régime, as the allies of the Smith rhgime-South Africa and Portugal-are now doing in defiance of the freedom-loving peoples. 76. The Soviet Union, true to its policy of supporting the national liberation movement of colonial peoples , expresses its complete solidarity with the Zimbabwe people, and with their heroic struggle for freedom and independence. The Soviet Union is prepared to co-operate with the African countries in providing assistance of a11 kinds to the Zimbabwe people in their just and lawful struggle. 77. Proceeding from this premise, the Soviet Union is in favoux of a resolution by the Security Council which would really lead to the liquidation of colonialism and racism in this part of Africa.

It is indeed most regrettable that the Security Council is obliged to deal once again with the situation in Southern Rhodesia. About thirteen months ago Mr. Ian Smith and his followers defied not only the United Kingdom but also world opinion by usurping power, and we regret to have to note that his régime isnot only holding out but seems to be more assertive than a year ago. For the fourth time since the unilateral declaration of independence on Il November of last year, the members of the Council are requested to consider measures which are designed to break that rebellion. 79. My delegation listened with great interest to the statement made before this Council by the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom [ 1331st meeting] last Thursday, 8 December. He gave us a bird’s-eye view of the efforts made by the British Government to try t,o bring Mr. Smith to reason. Those efforts culminated in the talks at the highest level on a British warship ten days ago. A working document gwas then prepared and signed which, if it had been accepted by the Salisbury rggime, could have formed, in the view of the United Kingdom Government, tbe basis for a comprehensive solution. The rejection of that working document in its entirety by the Salisbury régime created a new situation which the United Kingdom has now brought before us, and whiCh requires stronger action than before. a w., appendix 8. 81. In the first place, the Netherlands Government cannot condone in any way the illegal acts of Mr. Smith and bis régime. 1 made this clearduring the Council’s deliberations in November 1965, and again in April and IMay of tbis year. The position of my Government was then, and still is, that it condemns the unilateral declaration of independence by the Smith segime, whic:h is contrary to the prinoiples to be followed in the prooess of decolonization. These principles found expr’ession in the well-known resolution 1514 (XV) which was supported by the Netherlands when it was adopted and which is still the basis of our position. It follows that the Netherlands Government recognizes the right and obligation of the United Nations t0 supervise the manner in which the decolonization of Non-Self-Governing Territories takes place. In this respect the United Nations has a generalresponsibility, applying also to the future of Southern Rhodesia. 82. Secondly, the Netherlands Government holds at the same time that sovereignty over Southern Rhodesia still rests with the United Kingdom and that the Government of that country consequently bears the primary responsibilityfor the solution of the Rhodesian problem. In this view, Rritain’s initiatives to internationalize its efforts to bring Rhodesia back to a status of legality do not in any way detract from this prinnary responsibility of the United Kingdom. 83. It seems necessary to state clearly this dual basis of our attitude, because a certain amount of confusion has sometimes been noticeable in our debates as a result of what some have called an ambivalent attitude of the United Kingdom. On the one hand, the United Kingdom oharacterizes the action of MI~. Smith as a rebellion and hence as a domestic matter for the United Kingdom; yet, at the same time, it has brought the subject before the Security Cou.ncil under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which deals with threats to the peace and breaches of the peaoe. My delegation believes that these two aspects are not incompatible, but it is necessary to realize clearly what the basis of the Council’s dealing with the matter is. 84. Thirdly, the mention of Chapter VII leads me to the next point, which is the request of the United Kingdom for measures under that chapter of the Charter. We a11 know that a decision by the SecuritY Council to apply Chapter VII is a most S@riOUS SteP, and one which has rarely been taken. A clear Wwning that such a decision could be contemplated was given in Security council resolution 217 (1965) of 20 November 1965, operative paragraph 1 of which reads: “Determines that the situation resulting from the proclamation of independence by the illegal authori- IA%3 in Southern Rhodesia is extremely grave . . . 85. Fourthly, in view of those considerations my delegation is prepared to support the proposals made by the United Kingdom Government for selective mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter, As I pointed out, our essential considerations are, first, that the situation in Southern Rhodesia threatens international peace and security-although that fact, as has been pointed out here, is not clearly spelled out in the British draft resolution [S/7621]; and then, that the United Kingdom, as the country responsible for the Territory, has asked for international measures. The United Kingdom has made it plain that it needs international assistance to tope with the situation and ta bring about a solution in which the population of Southern Rhodesia as a whole Will exeroise its right of self-determination. In other words+ the United Nations cari help the United Kingdom, but it oannot in the present circumstances put itself in the place of the United Kingdom. 86. Fifthly, this approach which I have outlined has several consequences. For one thing, it implies that we take it to be the serious intention of the responsible Government to bring the rebellion to an end. My Government has scrupulously applied the measures which were requested by the Security Counoil a year ago, and it is certainly as disappointed as any other Government that those measures have failed to bring about the results which they were expected to bring a year ago. However, from there to jump to the conclusion that the BritishGovernment really only intends to maintain the Smith regime and its policy of racial discrimination seems to us a most unwarranted and most unfair judgement. Surely, if that had been the intention of the United Kingdom Government, nothing would have been easier for it than to let the Smith regime go ahead, and to recognize it. One may differ about the metbods adopted, one may criticize the disappointing effects they bave had; one may even say that there bas been miscalculation. But allegations that a country which for a year now has made heavy political and economic sacrifices has in reality only tried to deceive the wosld cari hardly, in our view, be taken seriously. 87. In that connexion 1 should like to make one more remark. Much has been said in our debate about the sesious plight of Zambia, whose economy has suffered damage and sexious consequences as a result of the measures taken against the r6gime of Mr. Smith. My delegation whole-heartedly CO~CU~S with thase feclings and appreciates that Zambia is assuming that burden. 68. SLxthIy, another implication of our approach is that we aonsider it essential to prevent the Rhodesian question from developing into a conflict comprising the whole southern part of Afxica. Such adevelopment would, as has been pointed out here by the British Poreign Secretary, have incalculable consequences, going far beyond the issues raised by the Southern Rhodesian problem. One does not salve a conflict of limited. dimensions by turning it into a conflict of much wider dimensions. 89, Seventhly, a further implication of our approach has to do with the much debated question of the use of forlee in Rhodesia. The United Kingdom, as the country bearing responsibility for Rhodesia, is entitled to apply force and is also entitled to the ultimate judgement of whether and when that should be done. As has rightly been pointed out by the representative of Argentina [1332nd meeting], the United Nations in itself icannot oblige the United Kingdom to use force in Rhodesia; neither is the United Kingdom in need of an authorization from the United Nations to do SO if it wishes. 90, Eighthly, turning now to the draft resolution submitted by the United Kingdom, my delegation, as 1 hav? stated,, is willing to support it. Several speakers have mentic’ned in connexion with that proposa1 the desirability of extending the mandatory sanctions to oil and oill products, and the United Kingdom has declared itself not opposed to such an embargo if an acceptable formula cari be found. On behalf of my delegation, 1 cari state that we do not see any difficult or unsurmountable psoblems in accepting an oil embargo. 91. Furthermore, opesative paragraphs 2 and 3 of the draft resolution are very important since they contain the key to its success. 1 refer, of course, to the fact that the sanctions cari be effective OnlY if they asn be applied, and if they are applied, universally. We ta:ke it that if a draft resolution such as this one is adopted by the Council, a11 States-1 repeat, ail States-will co-operate loyally to ensure their full implernentation on the basis of the obligations of Article 25 and Article 2, paragraph 6, of the Charter. 92. 1 have tried to outline the basic position of my delegation with regard to Ehe Rhodesian question and also with regard to the draft resolution whioh was submitted last week by the United Kingdom. 93. In the meantime we have received important amendments submitted by Mali, Nigeria and Uganda [S/7630]. It is not yet possible for my delegation to take a detailed position on each of those amendments, but 1 cari say this now. My delegation oould accept some of those amendments. My delegation would not be able to vote for others because of the basic reasons whioh I have outlined. Again, others might be acceptable to my delegation if they were couched in somewhat different language. My delegation therefore believes that the most fruitful method of dealing with these important amendments would be in informa1 consultations between the members in order to try and achieve a generally acceptable sesolution. My delegation Will give its full support to that attempt, which we understand is being made at present.

I have no more speakers on my list and 1 have therefore carried out the usual consultations to fix the date and time of our next meeting. 1 should like to inform the Council that, since the time-limit for the presence of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprès w-il1 shortly expire, it 1s absolutely essential to hold a meeting on the question, 1 have carried out the consultations wir;h that in mind and it has been decided, in principle, that the next meeting will take place tomorrow at 3 p.m. to consider the question of Cyprès and, as soon as the meeting on that question has ended, to continue discussing the item on Southern Rhodesia. 95. Lord CARADON (UnitedKingdom): Mr. President, 1 readily accept the proposa1 chat you have put to us and that 1 gather is suppoxted by other members of the Council. At the same time, 1 would wish to emphasize again that, in OUF view, the matter that we discuss is not only one of great importance but one of great urgency. 1 very much hope that following the meeting on Cyprus-which I recognize is necessary-the Council Will be prepared to proceed, with a due sense of urgency, to complete our discussions on Rhodesia and bring the matter to a conclusion.

1 should like to point out to the Council, and in particular to the representative of the United Kingdom, that 1 fully share his sense of urgency. That is why I have endeavoused in my consultations to caver bath points, It was SO decided. The meeting rose at 6 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED United Nations publications may distributors throughout the world. Write to: United Nations, Sales COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS Les publications des Nations Unies sont agences dépositaires du monde entier, ou adressez-vous à: Nations Unies, Section COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES Las pubIicaciones de las Naciones Unidas casas distribuidoras en todas partes dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Section Litho in U.N. Price: $U.S. 0.50 {or equivalent