S/PV.1645 Security Council

The Security Council will now President: Mr. Mohamed FAKHREDDINE (Sudan). continue its consideration of the question concerning the situation in Southern Rhodesia. The Council has before it document S/l0541/Rev.l which contains the revised text of the draft resolution sponsored by Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan. Present: The representatives of the following States: Argentina, Belgium, China, France, Guinea, India, Italy, Japan, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Yugoslavia. 3. Since no member of the Council wishes to speak at this stage, I take it that the Council is ready to vote on the revised draft resolution, I shall, therefore, call on those members which wish to speak in explanation of vote before the vote. Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/l645) I, Adoption of the agenda. 2. Question concerning the situation in Southern Rhodesia: (a) Letter dated 15 February 1972 from the representatives of Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan to the President of the Security Council (S/10540); (b) Fourth report of the Committee established in pursuance of Security Council resolution 253 (1968) (S/10229 and Add.1 and 2); (c) interim report of the Committee established in pursuance of Security Council resolution 253 (1968) (S/10408).

My delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution submitted by Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan, the revised version of which appears in documents S/10541/Rev.l. 5. The affirmative vote which my delegation intends to cast was made possible by the spirit of conciliation evinced by the sponsors, particularly by the representative df Somalia, who agreed to make certain changes in their text. My delegation is in particular gratified that operative paragraph 1 has been improved by taking into account the remarks made by the representative of France. The new text is unquestionably an improvement over the original text, since it refers expressly to resolution 253 (1968) of the Security Council by which sanctions against Southern Rhodesia were decided upon and also to the aims and objectives set out therein. The meeting was calIed to order at 4 p.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted* Question concerning the situation in Southern Rhodesia (01 Letter dated 15 February 1972 from the representatives of Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan to the President of the Security Council (S/10540) (b) Fourth report of the Committee established in pursuance of Security Council resolution 253 (1968) (S/10229 and Add.1 and 2”) (cl Interim report of the Committee established in pursuance of Security Council resolution 253 (1968) (S/10408”“) 6. Instead of that plural we would have preferred the singular, which would have better expressed the singleness of purpose of that resolution. The fact is that the sanctions have but one objective-to put an end to the rebellion in Southern Rhodesia, as is stated moreover in paragraph 3 of resolution 253 (1968). 7. We are pleased with the amendments to operative. paragraph 2, which were also inspired by the remarks of the representative of France. That paragraph stood to gain by confirming that it is only the Security Council resolutions a.pplying sanctions against Southern Rhodesia that are binding. Thus the scope of the obligation of Member States under Article 25 of the Charter is also defined.

In accordance with the Council’s previous decision at the 1640th meeting, I propose to invite the representative of Saudi Arabia to participate, without the right to vote, in discussion of the item on the agenda. At the invitation of the President, Mr. J. Baroody (Saudi Arabia) took the place reserved for him in the council Chamber. 8. As for paragraph 6, which is the logical sequel of the preceding one, we find this to be a reaffirmation of part of the terms of reference of the Committee on sanctions defined in paragraph 21 (c) of resolution 277 (1970) of the Security Council. Thus the Committee is once again **Ibid., Supplement for October, November and December 1971. 10. Here we should like to recall that the responsibilities entrusted by the Council to the Committee under resolutions 253 (1968) and 277 (1970) are technical and do not extend to the specifically political aspects of the question of Southern Rhodesia. Despite our doubts on this, we are in agreement with paragraph 6 as a whole, it being understood that the Council has granted the Committee on sanctions the authority to prepare recommendations on its terms of reference without, however, making this mandatory, as was the case with the tertns of reference given in its previous resolutions.

I believe that Japan’s views regarding Southern Rhodesia are very well known to members of the Council. However, let me recapitulate them very briefly. 12. We firmly believe in the inalienable right of the people of Southern Rhodesia to self-determination and independence. We have consistently supported the principle of majority rule in Southern Rhodesia on the basis of universal suffrage. We have fully supported the resolutions adopted by the Security Council concerning Southern Rhodesia. This includes, of course, the resolutions imposing sanctions against the Smith Ggime. These resolutions, adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, are mandatory in character, that is, they constitute for all Member States clear-cut obligations. For our part, we have made every effort to implement faithfully the provisions of those resolutions and shaI1 continue to do so. 13. Turning now to the specific business before the Council, it may be argued that the sanctions imposed upon Southern Rhodesia have not been altogether successful. We all know that the sanctions have not been effective enough to achieve the desired goal of bringing an end to the illegal rCgime in Southern Rhodesia. 14. Nevertheless, it is the continuing responsibility of the Council, having imposed sanctions, to be on the alert for any and all adverse developments which might tend to undermine their effectiveness and set up dangerous precedents. We look upon the revised draft resolution submitted by Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan fSIlO541 /Rev.]/ as being entirely in line with that responsibility of the Council and we therefore support tlzat draft. WC shall consider this draft resolution, if adopted, as 16. The French delegation will cast an affirmative vote on this draft resolution. 17. There is one point to which I should lilce to draw the sponsors’ attention and this is, in point of fact, by way of thinking aloud: In view of the procedures of the sanctions Committee and the experience the Council has gained ia this matter, I wonder whether this time a one-month’s time limit is adequate. Would it not be more wise to say 15 April rather than 1 April? In all events, it will not prevent 11s from voting in favour of this draft resolution if the date or 1 April is retained, but 1 think it would perhaps be wiser to give the Committee a month-and-a-half to enable it successfully to complete the task entrusted to it under tile present draft resolution. 18. Mr, MOJSOV (Yugoslavia): I should like at this stage of our deliberations to make a few comments on the revised draft resolution now before us in explaining the favourable vote the Yugoslav delegation will cast on this draft resolution. lg. May I begin by congratulating the sponsors of the draft resolution, Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan, on their timely, hard and statesmanlike work in producing for our consideration a serious, well-founded, effective and realistic draft, The revisions entered after consultations and after having heard suggestions from various members were made by the sponsors in the best spirit of maintaining the essential, specific, concrete substance of the draft, thus facilitating its widest possible acceptance. The revised draft is firm yet restrained. We supported the original draft, and we have no difficulty with the revisions. 20. In our previous statement (1641st meeting/ on the subject we said that we considered the draft to be the minimum required by an already grave situation doubly aggravated by the recent unfortunate violations of sanctions. The decision to import chrome from Southern Rhodesia was a most serious breach and most dangerous precedent. 21. Our delegation feels the Council should adopt this draft resolution unanimously because it satisfies two great needs in the Council’s continued dealing with the situatioti in Southern Rhodesia. First, it deals effectively and directly with the situation at hand. It addresses itself to the problem of reaffirming, maintaining and strengthening sanctions and categorically demanding that all States stop or prevent violations of them. This action was necessary and should not have been delayed. All States, all Governments and world public opinion arc to be put on notice that this body previous resolutions of this Council on Southern Rhodesia and that operative paragraph 1 decides “that the present sanctions 1 . . shall remain fully in force until the aims and objectives set out in resolution 253 (1968) are fully achieved”. We must, indeed, avoid anything that would give the wrong impression that, after the Addis Ababa meetings and the absence of decisions by this Council because of two vetoes, we are somehow acquiescing in what is now taking place in Southern Rhodesia. 23, There have been attempts to utilize the inability of the Council to adopt decisions on the larger situation in Southern Rhodesia as somehow indicating that we drift with developments and that we too are awaiting the results of the so-called test of acceptability as something that can have any bearing on the basic, clear and unmistakable requirements that this body has established as the only acceptable ones for ending the rebellion and giving the people of Zimbabwe their rights and their country. 24. This draft resolution, as we see it, by reaffirming the policy of the Council in one specific field-sanctions-and by recalling all other decisions of the Council serves as an earnest that the Council is firm in tnaintaining the whole structure of its well defined position on the Southern Rhodesian question as a whole and that it will not, now or in the future, admit anything contrary to it. 25. Finally, we think that operative paragraph 6, inviting our Committee on sanctions inter alia to make any suggestions concerning its terms of reference and other measures designed to ensure its effectiveness gives welcome room for all of us to think anew and try to contribute concretely to our collective better work in implementing the sanctions system. 26. For all those reasons the delegation of Yugoslavia will vote in favour of the draft resolution.

Before I call on the next representative who wishes to speak in explanation of his vote, I call on the representative of Somalia to make a statement on behalf of the sponsors of the draft resolution.

I wish just to announce that the three sponsors of the draft resolution agree with the proposal made by the representative of France that 15 April should be the date by which the sanctions Committee should report to the Security Council. The draft resolution will be amended accordingly. 30. Members of the Council are aware of a special situation affecting the United States enforcement of the sanctions on Rhodesia. 1 refer, of course, to the so-called Byrd Provision of the Military Procurement Bill, the provisions of which, I am certain, are well known to al1 around this table, 31. The considerations leading to the enactment into law of the Byrd Provision emerged clearly in the statements and testimony on the legislation in our Congress, Among these was the concern of Congressmen that, while the United States was becoming dependent on a single high-priced source of chrome ore, Rhodesian ore was being exported in quantity to other countries, Since the United States was scrupulously observing the sanctions, United States executive officials found it impossible to offer any persuasive refutation of that conclusion. The Congress felt that for campelling reasons of national security the United States should not be placed in a distinctly disadvantageous position with regard to the importation of strategic commodities. 32. It is an inescapable fact of life that this legislation, having been duly enacted in accordance with our constitutional processes, is now the law of the land. However, as Ambassador Bush made clear both at Addis Ababa and in later statements in various African countries he was privileged to visit, the United States remains interested in seeing that sanctions work. I reaffirm that we stand ready to assist the sanctions Committee in its efforts and we pledge that we will continue our full participation in its activities. But we also believe that this Council should face squarely the true nature of the problem confronting the United Nations concerning the effectiveness of the sanctions programme. 33. The United States continues to be committed to the sanctions programme voted in Security Council resolution 252 (1968) but we also believe that the enforcement of these sanctions by other countries is patently inadequate. It seems to us that countries that are open with information about their imports are at a disadvantage compared with countries that are not open with such information. To put it more bluntly, there are widespread violations of the sanctions which are not being brought to light, while the light is being focused on relatively unimportant exceptions to the application of sanctions in the case of my country. Others have during this debate alluded to this aspect of the sanctions programme. 34. Let us be blunt about the nature of the problem. The silnctions are not going to work if there is a double standard 35, The first and essential step is to acknowledge that sanctions, while they have had a measurable effect on the Rhodesian economy, have not been working very well with respect to a number of Rhodesian exports for a long period of time, Rhodesian exports continue at levels which appear to approximate and in some cases exceed pre-sanctions levels, This can be explained only by a widespread pattern of violation of or indifference to the requirements of the sanctions effort. 36, There have been alleged violations which concern at least nine countries sitting in this Council, including most of the permanent members, In fairness both to the countries against which the allegations have been made and to the countries which have tried scrupulously to adhere to the sanctions, these allegations should be investigated, 37, The fourth report of the sanctions Committee established that Rhodesian indirect exports to world markets through third countries rose from $8 million in 1966 to $215 million in 1970. It is common knowledge that in the last few years Rhodesia has been able to export the bulk of its mineral output. These exports must go somewhere-and they have not gone to the United States. 38. It is notable that the fourth report of the sanctions Committee points out that exports of chrome ore from South Africa to some major industrial countries more than doubled and in one case rose more than 10 times within the past four years. Many of the importing countries are members of this Council-and it is most difficult to escape the presumption that much of this increased purchase of ore did come from Rhodesia, As members of the Council are aware, we have been unable to obtain general agreement that, where there is reasonable question about the origin of imported minerals, those minerals be subject to the effective chemical tests that are available, As the members of the Council know, only the United Kingdom, the United States and Denmark have actually taken steps to prosecute firms found to be in violation of sanctions. 39. In 1965 Rhodesia exported $67 million worth of strategic materials, All indications are that Rhodesia’s exports of strategic commodities in 1970 were as high as or higher than the 1965 exports, and none of those commodities was imported into the United States, Somebody bought those goods. Somebody has been buying them each Year since sanctions went into effect. It has not been the United States, which has scrupulously enforced the sanctions programme. In short, the United States has not been the problem. 40. As a result of our recent legislation, the United States no longer prohibits the importation of strategic commodities. But let US keep this in perspective, Prior to sanctions, United States imports of those commodities amounted to less than 2 per cent of Rhodesia’s total pre-sanctions exports. The United States continues, therefore, to enforce scrupulously the embargo on commodities which constitute 41. My Government therefore suggests that this Council ask the sanctions Committee to request from Governments periodic reports on the importation of strategic minerals from all sources. The list of minerals should show worldwide trade in all those key commodities which are also produced in Rhodesia. The reports should also indicate sources of origin for each item or commodity, Reports of this nature should greatly assist the sanctions Committee to obtain a fuller picture of on-going trade with Rhodesia, we could envisage that in case of questionable shipments the Committee would be able to request and obtain samples of such shipments and subject those samples to chemical analysis to determine their origin, My Government would be prepared to co-operate fully in this effort. 42. My delegation will abstain on this draft resolution, We support the basic principle involved, which is the continua. tion of the sanctions programme against Southern Rho. desia. But even though they are not mandatory we cannot accept those parts of the draft resolution which directly or indirectly affect laws which have been adopted and are now in force and which under our Constitution must be implemented. 43. Mr, VINCI (Italy): I will be very brief in explaining the vote which my delegation will cast in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/l 0541 /Rev,1 I In doing so I shall refrain from mentioning the whole record of the contribution which my country and my delegation have made to the completion of the process of the emancipation of Africa, in full solidarity with the feelings and aspirations of our African friends, The record of Italy is, I believe, quite clear on, inter alia, the implementation and enforcement of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia and it speaks for itself since it is recorded in all the documents of the Committee on sanctions. 44, I wish to state that my delegation shared most of the reservations which were expressed at the 1641st meeting by the representative of France on the draft resolution submitted to the Council by Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan. Our main reservations related to operative paragraphs 1 and 3 and we wish to express our sincere appreciation to the sponsors and especially to Mr. Farah for having met the points made by Mr. Kosciusko-Morizet and for having revised the text in order to make it more consistent with the provisions contained in resolutions previously adopted by the Council. 45. Finally, I should like to thank the sponsors for having accepted the suggestion made by the representative of

The Security Council is considering a very serious question. The delegation of the USSR stated its attitude towards the question under discussion and towards the draft resolution at the previous meeting on this question /1642nd meering]. We cannot, however, remain silent in the face of the violation by the United States of America of a mandatory decision of the Council, particularly since In order to conceal this violation, allusions, hints and. direct statements have been made to the effect that the price of Soviet chrome has compelled the United States of America to embark on a course of violating Council resolutions concerning sanctions against the racist regime of Southern Rhodesia. This is such a far-fetched and fabricated argument that there would be no need to mention it if today, too, the United States representative had not made hints of a similar kind in seeking to justify the violation by the United States of the Council resolutions. 51. The purpose of such a statement is to conceal and justify the actions of the United States which run counter to the United Nations, by reference to international trade in chrome in order to conceal and justify violations of a Security Council resolution which is binding on all States Members of the United Nations concerning sanctions against the racist regime of Southern Rhodesia, These references and attempts at justification and this legislative action by the United States in violation of a Security Council resolution are clearly directed towards strengthen. ing the Smith racist regime; they have a political signifi. cance, they are political in character, and they are political and not trade or economic acts. 52, The trade in chrome on the international market, and its price, have nothing whatsoever to do with the question under consideration. Moreover, the price of chrome sold by the Soviet Union corresponds to the price of chrome on the international market and the United States is surely not kind enough to pay the Soviet Union twice the going price for Soviet chrome. That has never happened in history and will never happen. The United States has bouaht and is buying Soviet chrome at generally recognized international prices. Therefore to refer to the level of Soviet prices means that there is absolutely no other argument to justify the violation of a Security Council resolution. Furthermore, everyone knows that the Council has never prohibited the export of goods or material of any kind, including chrome ore, from the Soviet Union. So why is the’purchase of Soviet chrome by the United States mentioned here? 47. The fact that the United States has violated a Security Council resolution, as members of the Council know, had already been admitted by the United States representative, Mr. Bush, in Addis Ababa, Today, his deputy, Ambassador Phillips, has confirmed it. Speaking in the Security Council in Addis Ababa, Ambassador Bush stated: “True, our Congress, concerned about national security, put a provision in the United States law that chrome essential to national security could under certain limited conditions be imported from Rhodesia”. [1637th meeting, para. I 751 48. Now reports have appeared in the press that 25,000 tons of Rhodesian chrome are already being loaded in a Mozambican port, incidentally, it should be pointed out, Ambassador Ortiz de Rozas, on the Argentine ship ,Santos Vega, which is then bound for New Orleans. 53. It is not difficult to see that this argument has been dragged up in order to find some kind of justification for such a gross and cynical violation by the United States of a Security Council resolution. The Council has placed an embargo, a ban, on trade with Southern Rhodesia and it is the violation by the United States of that ban, of that resolution of the Council, that is being discussed at the meetings of the Council, 49. The fact that the United States has violated the sanctions, with the participation of Portugal and now with the co-operation of an Argentine ship, should be given due weight by the Security Council This question is now being considered in the Council and members of the Council have before them a draft resolution submitted by the three African countries which are members of the Council, 54. If we look into this matter more closely, it will become absolutely clear that arguments about the price of chrome and references to the national security of the United States are being used by the United States representatives in the Security Council and by part of the American propaganda machine solely to conceal and justify the political action taken by the United States aimed at supporting the racist Smith r6gime. The crux of the matter is that the United States, together with the United Kingdom, is assisting and co-operating with the racist colonialist regimes in southern Africa, not only the Southern Rhodesian r@me but also the others, and is taking, measures in violation of a Security Council resolution with a view to strengthening and supporting those r6gimes. That is the crux of the matter. 50. AS I have already pointed out, the position of the USSR on this question was set out in detail at a previous meeting, on 25 February 1972. I have now asked to speak in order to repudiate categorically the attempts of the official representatives of the United States and certain organs of the American press to divert attention from the violation by the United States of the sanctions against Southern Rhodesia, by far-fetched references to some alleged dependence of the United States on the import of chrome from the Soviet Union, None other than the 56. Thus, all these concrete facts refute both the assertion of Ambassador Bush and today’s repetition of that assertion by Ambassador Phillips by means of hints, to the effect that the United States is allegedly receiving chrome from only one source and therefore desperately needs a second source-Southern Rhodesia, the Southern Rhodesian rigime. 57. We will adduce one further argument. A leading article in today’s issue of ?%he New I’ork Times devoted to this problem stated: “The national defence argument, at least, was fraudulent. The United States has so much chrome in its stockpile that the Administration submitted legislation last year to provide for the disposal of 1.3 million tons over three years.” The United States has enormous stocks, “The Office of Emergency Preparedness has estimated that the stockpile is 2.2 million tons in excess of any foreseeable strategic need.“’ These are concrete facts, from an authoritative source, from The New York Times. 1 Quoted in English by the spcakcr. “Yet the Administration took no action during the Congressional debate either to set the record straight on chrome or to sustain the American commitment to the United Nations.“’ So stresses The New York Times of 28 February 1972. This directly bears out what I said, that there has been a direct disregard of a United Nations resolution, of a Security Council resolution, and attempts have been made to justify it. But from time immemorial, even before the dark days of the “cold war”, the Americans have always found the besl justification is to throw the blame on the Soviet Union. They believed this in the past, it is stupid to repeat it now, and it is time for the United States representatives to ul:derstand this reality. 58. The President of the United States in his official statements appeals for the reality of the contemporary world to be taken into account, but these appeals for a realpolitik have obviously not yet reached the United States representative in the Security Council. Let us hope that these appeals do reach him. 59. This is the situation with regard to the references to Russian chrome and its price. From all this only one conclusion is clear: any references to Soviet chrome aad ikp high price are fabricated and are a diversionary manoewre undertaken by the United States with a view to conceding the moral and economic support which they give to the racist Smith rdgime. 60. Today Ambassador Phillips used another diversionary manoeuvre. He alluded indirectly to other countries, he made hints. This is also a diversionary manoeuvre, th’e purpose of which is to justify the illegal actions of the United States, its gross violations of the Security Council resolutions on sanctions against the racist fascist r$.irne ~II Southern Rhodesia, and to reassure the Africans and look good in their eyes. There can be no doubt that neither the earlier diversionary manoeuvre concerning Russian chrome ore nor today’s new diversionary manoeuvre will succeed or mislead anyone. 61. The attempts to cast aspersions on the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist policy of the Soviet Union and the attempts to drive a wedge between the USSR and the. African countries will also be unsuccessful. We have already spoken on that in our last statement. 62. The Soviet Union shows its full solidarity with the African people in southern Africa, in their just struggle to gain freedom and independence, and has assisted, still 69. Now I can understand that this is an unfortunate situation from the point of view of the Soviet Government. I know that Soviet economic doctrine is not based primarily on the profit motive, but I suspect that a rather handsome profit may have been enjoyed during the Period when the United States fully subscribed to the sanctions programme with respect to chrome. Of course, now this will no longer be I windfall for the Soviet Government. 70. AS I said, I do not want to get involved in a long drawn out discussion of economics. I should simply like to say that, for our part, we are not trying to camouflage anything. 1 believe the Soviet representative talked about our camouflaging things. We are quite open, We have said exactly what the problem is, what we intend to do, what we have done, and we suggested that the problem may be a bit more complex than some others here have indicated. So, we are not trying to camouflage anything. 65. A report has be% rcceiwcrl tPorn Paris ~odq”, ;i report from Agence France-l’ressc, trnnsrnittcd from Lusaka. During his visit lo Lusaka, Mr. Bush alsrl attcmptcd to justify the resumption of’ the imlw*atitm of’ Khodcsian chrome by the United States. In *hat cwnnc\iun he said: “The United States at the sitme tinlt supprsrts V[) per cent of the United Nations resolutions tsn Kht,clcsia.” Only 00 per cent, yet it is the obligation, the dut>, of all mrmbcrs of the Council -.no* to mention *he fact *ha* i* js *he duty and obligation of all States Members of the United Nations and above all of the l-wmanent members ot” the Security Council-to implement the resolutiuns of the Council of *hat kind 100 per cent, and not only 90 per cent. This is precisely the essence of the appu;rl in the draft resolution which was submitted today tar the consideration of the Security Council by the three Afric;to St;i*cs which are members of the Security Cwurr4. 3%~ best psssiblc cwrsc would be for the Council tu w*c unanimously in favour ot that draft resolution and tu cum~~~y witI\ it strictly. 71. I am very pleased that the representative of the Soviet Union was able to see that editorial in The New York Tinm. I was going to send him a copy in case he had not seen it. I wish that Pravda and Izvestia sometimes could give us quite such candid criticisms of their Government’s policies as 77le New York Times sometimes does in our cBse. But be that as it may, 1 should like to conclude by saying that we have stated our case very candidly. We have nothing to hide, I am very sorry that the Soviet representative took umbrage at my non-attack against him, and I hope tht it is not a sign of a guilty conscience. 71. Mr. ORTIZ DE ROZAS (Argentina) (interpretation jiun* ~l~nishi: While referring to a press release published tuday. actually, as will have been seen, it was an editorial in 71,~~ &w York Tilna-the representative of the Soviet Union in his statement mentioned Argentina in connexion wi*h *he flag of a cargo ship, the Santos Vegq, which is allegedly carrying chrome ore from Rhodesia to the United States. In this connexion I have prepared some clarifications, which I had intended to make available to the Cummi**ee on sanctions, but I believe it is desirable to provide these c1arificatiolls now. 66. The Soviet delegation supports the draft resolution and will vote in favour of it. 67, THE PRESIDE:,NT: ~trl* rcI,rclscn*a*ivc 01’ the *.‘nitcrI States wishes to speak in usercisc 01‘ his ri@t of reply, ilrld I now call on him. 73. my delegation learned of *his situation on 14 FebrU;lry, following an informal comment made by *he rq~rcsclllatiV~ of Somalia. Mr. Farah said informally at a meeting of the non-permanent members of the Security Council *ha* in the newspaper 77~ IIM Times, published in 74. I have taken the liberty of presenting this brief account so as to make it clear that my country started the appropriate investigation as soon as it was informed of the case. We wish to place that clearly on record, because we do not consider it necessary to wait until we are given an official communication from the United Nations to start inquiries, as is usually the case where sanctions violations are concerned, On our own initiative we decided to begin without delay to find out the facts and the background of that article. We did so because we have been and still are faithfully complying with the sanctions applied in this field. Unfortunately, as I have just explained, it was only on Wednesday, 16 February, that the appropriate inquiries could be started. 75. I should now like to inform the Council of all the facts which we have available at this time. 76. First, the cargo ship in question appears indeed to be the Cantos Vega, owned by,Gotaas-Larsen Argentina S.A. It is a bulk cargo ship of approximately 30,000 tons, which, according to the company from which information was urgently requested, reached Beira, Mozambique, on 15 February, and was scheduled to leave between 19 and 20 February. 77. Secondly, the commercial firm in question indicated that: (a) The agents at the port of Beira were Messrs. George Cory Mann, Post Office Box 44, Beira, the shipper being the Pote Mineral Company of the United States and a person by the name of Figueros or Figueroa acting as the carrier of the cargo up to Beira; (b) This was a contract on the international open market (Meridore Charter 1965, as revised); {c) 24,912 long tons of concentrated mineral ore were loaded. It is assumed that it was concentrated chrome ore; (d) The consignee was the Foote Mineral Company of the United States; (e) The captain of the ship declared that he did not know the origin of the merchandise nor its quality or chemical composition, and that he relied on the shipper’s statements, in accordance with the customs and usages of the shipping trade, The shipping company reported that no one on the ship is obliged to investigate the origin of merchandise and that it is up to the fleet company to declare the nature of the goods; (f) The route of the Santos Vega is from Beira to an American port on the Gulf of Mexico, to be made known by the importer 72 hours before arriving in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the company, that is the normal procedure in this type of business, since frequently cargoes are sold while en route, The freight consisted of mineral ore in bulk, whose origin, as I have indicated, was not known. 79. I am now able to state in advance that, if it is confirmed that the cargo was from Rhodesia and is being carried with the knowledge of those responsible for the ship, the Government of Argentina will consider the penalties or administrative measures to be applied in accordance with our national legislation on the subject. 80. In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that in my country the necessary legal and administrative measures were enacted a long time ago to avoid situations of this kind, These measures continue to be fully in force and, therefore, we shall continue to ensure their strictest application, 81, Argentina, which traditionally complies scrupulously with its international obligations, reiterates its support fen the action taken by the United Nations in this field, In that same spirit we shall now vote in favour of the revised draft resolution before us, and we support all the other resolu. tions that have been adopted to impose sanctions against the illegal regime of Southern Rhodesia.

I call on the representative of the Soviet Union in exercise of the right of reply.

I shall be brief. The reply by the United States representative, Ambassador Phillips, is wide of the mark. 84. In my statement I referred to the words of Mr, Bush, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, and I pointed out that if it bad not been for his statement that the sole source of chrome ore for the United States was Russia, and if it had not been for the hint made today by Mr. Phillips that the United States receives chrome ore from one source, I should not have spoken. But I quoted Mr, Bush only in summary. I can now quote from the original, This is the statement made by Mr, Bush on 22 February after his tour of 10 African countries. 1 shall quote from the press release of the Mission of the United States to the United Nations, on page 3 of which it is stated: “This legislation was passed not in an effort to furlhcr racism and colonialism, but because of the concern of the Congress about an entirely different problem, namely, the fact that we were buying this strategic material front Russia at twice the price we were paying for it froar Rhodesia before.” 85. By the facts I have adduced and by my references to The New York Times, I have convincingly demonstrated the unsoundness of your argument that the United States adopted legislation violating a decision of the Uniled Nations allegedly only because of Russian chrome ore. That is a ludicrous basis, as 1 have proved in my statement. In favour: Argentina, Belgium, China, France, Guinea, India, Italy, Japan, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia, 87, The PRESIDENT: If no member of the Council wishes to speak at this stage in explanation of vote before the voting, I shall take it that the Council is ready to proceed to vote on the revised draft resolution submitted by Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan, contained in document S/ 10541 IRev.1, with operative paragraph 6 amended to read as follows: Against: None. Abstaining: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. “Requessts the Committee established in pursuance of Security Council resolution 253 (1968) to meet, as a matter of urgency, to consider ways and means by which the implementation of sanctions may be ensured and to submit to the Council, not later than 15 April 1972, a report containing recommendations in this respect, including any suggestions which the Committee might wish to make concerning its terms of reference and any other measures designed to ensure the effectiveness of its work;“. The draft resolution was adopted by 13 votes to none, with 2 abstentions.2

I shall now call on those representatives who have asked to be allowed to explain their vote after the voting.

My delegation has on previous occasions made it clear that we do not believe that resolutions on any aspect of the Rhodesian question are necessary at this time, For that reason it has abstained both on the paragraph vote and on the vote on the resolution as a whole, However, it is clearly the wish of the majority of the members of the Council that a resolution should be adopted on the question of sanctions. Since, unlike the draft on the Rhodesia question in general with which we were confronted in Addis Ababa, this resolution does not seek to impose any directive upon my Government in the discharge of its responsibilities, we have not opposed it.

I should like to request a separate vote on operative paragraph la

I wish to suggest simply a drafting change. I am not proposing it formally but I am suggesting it to the sponsors for their consideration, The word “fully” appears twice in operative paragraph 1. This is just a stylistic change, to use the word “completely” instead of “fully”. 95. It is, of course, clear that the objective of sanctions is the objective which is stated for them in resolution 253 (1968). My delegation does not accept certain interpretations which have been advanced during the course of the debate.

Operative paragraph 1 would then read : ciReuffirnu its decision that the present sanctions against Southern Rhodesia shall remain fully in force until the aims and objectives set out in resolution 253 (1968) are completely achieved;“.

My delegation is gratified by the overwhelming vote not only in support of the resolu. tion as a whole but also in support of paragraph 1 in particular. When I introduced the draft resolution [16#Zst meeting] I pointed out that when the sponsors spoke of the “aims and objectives” of resolution 253 (1968) we had very much in mind the provisions of paragraph 2: which reads as follows: I take it that the sponsors agree to this proposed amendment, namely, that the second “fully” in operative paragraph 1 should be changed to “completely”. 91. A separate vote has been requested on operative paragraph 1. “Calls upon the United Kingdom as the administering Power in the discharge of its responsibility to take urgently all effective measures to bring to an end the rebellion in Southern Rhodesia, and”-and this is very important-“enable the people to secure the enjoyment of their rights as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in conformity with the objectives of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV);“. A vote was taken by show of hands. 1~ favour: Argentina, Belgium, China, France, Guinea, India, Italy, Japan, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Yugoslavia. Against; None. 97. Now that we have been able to reassure the internatio. nal community of the intention of this Council to continue, with all the vigour and all the means at its disposal, the enforcement of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia, we Abstainillg: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Operative paragraph 1 was adopted by 14 votes to none, with 1 absfention 2 See resolution 314 (1972). 99. The communication asked the permanent members to repair the historic error of 4 February 1972 and the wrongs committed against the peoples of Africa. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: SU.S. 1.00 (or equlvelent in other currencies) 72.77001-October 1975-1,925 The meeting rose at 5.20 p.m.