S/PV.924 Security Council

In a telegram dated 9 January 1961, the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that the Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations had been appointed to represent Belgiumatthe meetings devoted ta the item onthe agenda.Withthe consent of the Coun... cil, l invite the representative of Belgium to take a place at the COUDcil table. At the invitation ofthe President, Mr. Walter Loridan fBelgium) took a place at the Council table.

The Soviet GovernmenthaB requested an urgent meeting of the Security Councn [8/4616] to discuss questions arising out ofnewacts of aggression committed by Belgium against the Republie of the Congo. 3. The 8ecurity Council bas again been compelled to mset to conslder matters connected with the situation in the Republic of the Congo. It has been compelled to 4. The Soviet llovernment's statement on tltis subject, which was published today in Moscow, contains the following passage: "At the beginning of January 1961 acts of armed aggression against the Hepublic of the Congo were committed from the Territory of Runnda-Urundi, which is Wlder United Nations trusteeship. The organizer of these aggressive actions, the Government of Belgium, us€Id the United Nations Trust Territory under Belgian administration for purposes of aggression and gave direct military assistance to the mercenary armed detachments of Mobutuists, placing Belgian aircraft and military and service persoIUlel at their disposaI. -These detachments were flown from the Congo (Luluabourg) to Ruanda-Urundi (Usumbura) in Belgian aircraft and then conveyed from the airfield at Usumbura to the frontier of the Republic ofthe Congo, in the vicinity of Bukavu, in Belglan vehicles. After the Mobutu gangs, having crossed the Congolese frontier, had been routed by Government troops of the Republic of the Congo, Belgian military Wllts stationed in Ruanda-UrWldi attacked these troops, together with the Mobutuists, in a number of areas of the Congolese Province of Kivu. The Belgian Ambassador at Brazzaville and the Belgian administering authcrlties in Ruanda-Urundi maintained official contacts with the Mobutuists in the preparation and execution of these acts of aggression. "SUch acts are a direct continuation of Belgium's armed intervention againstthe Republic ofthe Congo, which constitutes a threat to the peace and security of the peoples. The use of the Territory of Ruanda- Urunil for purposes of aggression against the neigb~ing Republic of the Congo demonstrates once ~ gain the refusaI of Belgium and the cOWltries members of the North Atlantic bloc (NATO), which are working band in band with it, to abide by the obligations which they have assumed towards the United Nations and their refusaI to abide by the will of the peoples as expressed in the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its fifteenth session." This is how recent developments are assessed in the Soviet Government's statement. The gravity of these developments is due to two main causes. 5. Firstly D the recent events on the frontier of the Republic of the Congo and Ruanda-Urundi, which constitute a new obstacle to the peaceful settlemant of the Congo problem. are further proof of the obvious tact that Belgian aggression aga!nst the Republic of the Congo bas not ceased since it W'd.S first laWlched in July last year and that it is still continuing, merely assuming different forms. 6. At this point, there ill no nead for me to recapitulate in detail the whole story of the aggression by 7. Throughout the discussion of the Congo problem in the United Nations and, in particular, in the discussion in the General Assembly during the first part of its fifteenth session, Belgium's aggressive activities against its former colony were forcefully condemned by the overwhelming majority of Members ofthe United Nations. The Belgian Government, however, relying on the support of its NATO allies, disregarded and is still disregarding the three Security Council resolutions [S/4387, S/4405 and S/4426] calling for the· complete withdrawal of Belgian forces from the whole territory of the Congo as weIl as the resolution 1474 (E8-lV) adopted by the General Assembly at its emergency special session confirming the principle of non-Interference in the domestic affairs of the Congo. The aggressive nature cf the Belgian Government's activitles with respect to the Republic of the CongowasinfactadmittedinMr. Dl.y-...l's Second Progress Report in November 1960 [S/4557] and is in effect being admitted now both in the reports by the command of the "United Nations Force" in the Congo and in the statements by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, althol.lgh some ofthese statements also indicate that the command of the "United Nations ForceIl has a direct responsibility for the events of the last few days. 8. The Belgian Government's open flouting of the Security COlDlcil and General Assembly resolutions and the blatantly colonial policy ft is pursuingtowards a young African state have aroused universal indignation in the peace-loving countries and have serioualy impaired Belgium's international prestige. Bothin the Security CouncU and the General Assembly. indisputable facts have repeatedly been pl'oduced which raveal the true l'ole of Belgium and!ts allies in the tragic events taldng place in the territory of the Republic of the Congo. 9. And no one has refuted these facts. Even the direct participants in the collective colonialist conspiracy against the Congolese people Mve not had the éourage openly to deny the plainevidence of Be19ium's subversive actlvities in the Congo and of the desire of the Belgian authorities ta re-establlsh themselves in their former colony0 10. Now that six months bave passed since the start of the Belgian aggression in the CI l, we cau appreclate the full aignificance of the .J.on taken in the United Nations by Belgiumrs allies. who have made strenuous efforts ta prevent Belgium from being formally branded an aggressor, as it unquestionably is. We are now in a better position ta evaluate the assertions made by the delegations of the United States. France and certain other countries and by the Secretary-General that the Belgian Government 11. A situation can no longer be tolerated in which Belgium, a Member of the Unit8dNations,isinfringing with impunity the Charter of Ws Organization andthe decisions of its highest organs, engaging in activities which imperil peace not only in Africa but throughout the world and creating a situation which, by general admission, may at any moment lead to large-scale military conflict. The Security Council, which bears the primaryresponsibilityfor the maintenance ofpeace and security, cannot and mt-:lt not acquiesce in such a situation. 12. Secondly, the gravity of the situation resulting from recent events on the frontier between Congo and Ruanda-Urundi is increased by the facttbatBelgium's actions constitute a blatantviolation ofthe international status of a United Nations Trust Territory and an abuse of its powers a.s an Administering Authority. 13. This fact is emphasized in the report made by Mr. Dayal,the Special Representative ofthe Secretary- General in the Congo, on 1January 1961.The following statament is made in Ws report: "The situation was considered especially grave as it clearly involved more thai1 a purely internai constitut1onal conflict, inparticularbecause a United Nations Trust Territory had been used by armed soldiers foreign to that Territory, and a military crossing of an international frontier bad takenplace by mœns of an armed penetration into an area in respect of which the Security CouncU had assigned the Secretary-Generalspecialresponsibilities which were confirmed by the General Assembly." [S/4606 and Add.l, annex IV, para. 11.] 14. The whole course of the events now under discussion make it abundantly clear that Belglum's use of the Terrltory of Ruanda-Urundi for aggressive purposes was. by no means fortultous, butrepresents a continuation of the Belglan Government's policy tawards the Republic of the Congo which was decislvely condemned by the majorlty of Members of the United Natiœs. 15. The Soviet delegation, in company witb a number of other delegations, drew the Security Council's attention !rom the very outset tothefactthat even that part of. ths Belg1an rnilitary establishment whioh was withdr&.wn fram the Congo by -way of a gesture was largely despatched not te Belgium, but to the Terri- 17. The Indian representative expressed his GovernmentIs serious concern regarding ~e concentration of Belgian troops in the Territory of Ruanda-Unmdiat the 917th meeting of the Security Council held on 10 December to consider the question of the situatlon in the Republic of the Congo. Mr. Krishna Menon then emphasized, and rightly so, that the ~oncentrationof Belgian troops in Ruanda-Urundi oonstituted a groas violat.lon of the United Nations Charter and of the Truateeship Agreement illtO which the Belgians bad entered~ He expressed DÙsgivings at the possibility of a Con.go situation being repeated in the Territory nf Ruanda-Urundi, a situation in which the young African Republic has been subjectsdto a serious ordeal as a result of subversive colonialist activities J and pointed out that the United Nations WQuld carrya heavy responeibility if it allowed Belgium to use the Trust Territory under Its administration for suchpurposes,. 18. At that time,the Belgian representative attempted to deny the statements made by the representatives of Jndia and other countries andassuredthe Assembly Y that the Belgian troops in Ruanda-Urundi were there solely in order to maintain internaI orderand security. But even then, the Governments of many countries were in possession offacts which disprovedthe truth of such assertions by the Be1gian representative and the recent events on t.lJ.e border betvveen the Congo and Ruanda-Urundi have left no l'oom for doubt regarding the essentially aggressive cl1a.racter of the Bel&ian GovernmentVs activitieso 19. Belgium's use of the Territory of Ruanda-Urundi as a base for operations against the Republic of the Congo runs directIy cO\l.ntertoparagraph 6 ofthe reselui1011 [1474 (E8-IV)] adopted by the General Assembly at its fourth emergency special session, under which aU States llwithout prejudice to the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Congo" are called upon Iito refrain from the direct and indirect provision ofarms or othal' materials of war and military personnel and other assistance for m1litary purposes in the Congo during the temporary period of military assistance through the United Nations I! ~ !I Official Recor.ès of theGeneral Assembly, Flfteenlth Sellsion,Fourth ~ 1090th meeting, y l!lli!., 109l3t meeting; and Plenary Meetings. 958th meeting. 21. It is significant that reference is now beingmade to the facts relating to Belgium's illegal actt.v1ties against the Republic of the Congo and tothe use of the Trust Territory of Ruanda-Urundi for these purposes even in official United Nations documents issued under the signature of the Secretary-General, although, as we know, the Secretary-General has never, to put it mildly, taken a particularly exacting line towards Belgium. For instance, the Secretary-General's "note verbale" of 1January 1961, addressedtothe Permanent Representative of Belgium,admits that Mobutu's gangs have been given "••• direct or indirect ••• assistance for military purposes ••• by authorities under the Belgian Government in contravention of paragraph 6 of the resolution adopted unanimously by the General Assembly on 20 September 1960". [8/4606 and Add.l, annex n.] The statements made by the Permanent Representative of Belgium in bis "note verbale" on 11 January 1961 [8/4621] are completely at variance with these assertions by the Secretary-General. 22. According to the "note verbaleil of! Januaryfrom the Secretary-General, the Belgian authorities, which the Secretary-General discreetly prefers to describe as "persons in the Trust Territoryll, "must bave lent support to the operation both at the landing and by facilltating the transit of the Congolese troopstotheir intended destination", i.e. to the territory of the Congolese Province of Kivu. It should be noted that Mr. Hammarskjold, the Sec atary-General of the United Nations, who only recentlyassuredthe Members of the Organizationthatthe threat of Belglanaggression had been eliminated, bas now bsen compelled toadmit publicly that this aggression Is continuing and that the threat to peace in the heart of Africa is growing. 23. These admissions do not, however, prevent the Secretary-General from continuing to uphold the discredited thesis of so-called "non-intervention by the United Nations in the internaI conflict in the Congo". The same documents which admit the existence of aggressive activities by Belgium against the Congo bear witness to the improper role which the commanlj of the "United Nations Force" has played in events on the border between Ruanda-Urundi and the Belgian Congo. The preparations by Mobutu's gangs for an armed incursian into Kivu from the United Nations Trust Territory were ~ reality carried out with the knowledge and obvious connivance of the command of the "United Nations Force" in the Congo. It iB clear from the report submitted on thls question by the Special Representative of the Secretary-C18neral in the Congo that the command of the ·United Nations Force· did not in fact see fit ta talte any steps ta prevÈ:mt the violation of the international status of 24. Instead of calling a haIt to the aggressive activities of Mobutu's supporters and the Belgians. the command of the "United Nations Force ll • to quote document S/4606/Add.1, lIsought the agreement ofboth sides for ONUC to assure the neutrality ofthe frontier". 25. Since when has the United Nations, which was set up to maintain peace and security, found it necessary to seek the consent of the aggressor to measures it considers it necessary to carry out? Is it not ëlear to the Secretary-General and to his Special Representative in the Cong(j that the duty of the United Nations is to haIt aggressionandtoensure conditions ofpeace and security in the Congo and in the Trust Territory? 26. To sum up, the very clear conclusion may he drawn that the Government of Belgium,havingcommitted a flagrant violation of its obligations under the Trusteeship Agreement for Ruanda-Urundi, has divested itself of the right-to continuetoadminister this Territory and that Belgian colonial policy has been completely discredited not Ollly in the Congo, but also in the Trust Territory of Ruanda-Urundi. 27. This conclusion is particularly justified in vie\\' of the fact that the Belgian colonial authorities and troops have brought about a catastrophic situationand internaI chaos in the Trust Territory. They are deliberately fomenting tribal strife, inciting one section of the population against another and crushing the political parties fighting for their country's independencei they have imprisoned or exiled from Ruanda- Urundi thousands of indigenous inhabitants who have dared to oppose Belgianpolicy. Belgium's entire colonial policy in Ruanda-Urundi Vias strongly criticized in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly by a number of representatives of those inhabitants. 28. In a vain attempt to perpetuate their colonial domination in Ruanda-Urundi, the Belgian authorities are attempting to ibring about a deterioration in the situation in their Territory so that, under the pretext of defending "law and arder",they canuse their troops and police to suppress the national liberation movement which has developed in this country. 29. As we know, during thA first part of its fifteenth session, the General Assembly adopted a special resolution on the future of Ruanda-Urundi, in which the Belgian Ck' 'ernment was urged "to implement hnmediately measures of full anduncondit1onal amnestyand to abolish the emergency r~g:l.me so as to enable political workers and leaders who are in exile or impriaoned in the Territory to resume normal,damacratic polltical activities before the electionsil • Instead of complying with the resolution 1579 (XV),the Belgian Government has proceeded ~o make direct use of thiB Territory for the purpose of aS'gression against the Congolese people. 310 The Statement of the USSR Government which has been distributed today contains the following words: "An important milestoue in the struggle for the liberation of Africa from the fetters and bonds of colonialism was the recently concluded conference of Heads ofindependent African Statesat Casablanca. The 'Casablanca charter' adopted by the conference expresses the growing resolve ofthe Africanpeoples to strengthen their unity and to intensify their struggle against old and new forms of colonialism, against the imperialist policy of dividing African countries, peoples and tribes and fomenting dissension among them, againstthe promotion of separatist movements and puppet governments, and againstthe strengthening of colonial dominationinitsnewforms in the economic milttary and political fields. ·The Soviet Government fully supports the resolution on the situation in the Congo,whichwas adopted at the Casablanca conference and which calls, first and foremost, for the immediate disarming anddisbandment of the mercenary gangs of Mobutu, the release from imprisonment of the Prime Minister, Mr. Patrice Lumumba, and of other members of the Congo Parliament and Government, the convening of Pli.rliament, the handing over to the Iawful government of all civilian and military airfields, radio stations and other installations, and the adoption of other measures with a view to ending colonial aggression in the Congo-. [S/4622, paras. 20and 21.] 32. Reference may appropriately he made in this connexion to one of the main clauses inthe Declaration on the grant of independence to colonial countries and people. whtch the Soviet delegation .ubmltted on 23 SCptember 1960 for the consideration ofthe General Assembly at its fifteenth session. This clause states that. togethel' with the infamous system of colonialism, the variant ofthe colonial r4gime lmownas the trusteeship system bas also outlived !tself. It has done so because. being a vestigial remnant of the mandates system of the League of Nations, itdoes not in practice promote the rapid development of the Trust Territories towards independence. Under this system. the States exe:rcising ·trusteeship·.disregardingthe princ!ples of the United Nations. I1r~ mfact preserving colonial r6gimes! mercllessly e:!:pl~ ~~!I.ithe population and plundering the natural reoo\U.,.;.'... of the Territories, repressing those who submit petitions to the 33. It should also be borne in mindthat, only a month ago. the General Assemblyadopted,after a longand full discussion. a resolution 1514 (XV) on the colonial question, the taxt of which was introduced by a ~'TOUp of forty-three Asian and African States and which obtained the votes of the overwhelming majorityofthe representatives of the countries of the world. withthe exception of a small handful of colonialists. Our task now Is to ensure that the will of the peoples. as expressed in this resolution. should be translated into reality and that the demands itputs forward should not remain a dead letter. but should be given practical effect. 34. The following words appear inthe statementwhich was made by Mr. N. S. Khroshchev. Chairman of the Council of Ministers cf the USSR. in connexion with this Declaration by the General Assembly on the granting of independence to the colonial countries and peoples and which was published on 28 December 1960: "We must not ailow the Implementation of the General Assembly resolution tobe sabotaged through various stratagems and manœuvres. If the United Nations resolution states that colonialism must be brought to an end immediately. then the appropriate measures must indeed be institutedimmediatelyand must not be postponed on one pretext of another." 35. We are now confrontedwithasituationwhichcalls for preclsely such acti9n. We can no longer allow one of the territories. for which the United Nations bears special responslbilities. not only to remain a colony. but to be openly used by the Administering Authority against another African State which bas only recently won its independence. We cannotallow one ofthe colonial States to commitaflagrantbreachofits obligations under the United Na.tions Charter and the Trusteeship Agreement before the eyes of the whole world. The Security Council must haIt these acta of colonial aggression by Belgiumand compelthe Belgian Government to comply with the will of the peoples as expressed in the recently adopted Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, thus demonstrating to the world that Ws resolution Is not the statement of a pious hope. but a genuine cail ta action.to decisive measuresagainstthe colonialists with a view to securing the effective liberation of the colonial peoples. 36. When a Member of the United Nations-Belglumnot only shows no desire wha.tever to carry out the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly on the Cmlgo question. but continues to 'li !!lli!..~.agenda ltem 87. document A/4502. 37. For aIl these reasons, the Soviet delegation considers that the Security Council shouldadopta resolution condemning Belgium's continuing aggression against the Republic of the Congo and making an unequivocal demand for the immediate cessation ofthis aggression. The Council should caU upon the Belgian Government immediately to withdrawaU Belgian military, para-military and civilian personnel from the territory of the Republic ofthe Congo. It should, lastly. recommend the General Assembly to give urgent consideration to the question of Belgium's violation ofthe Trugteeship Agreement for the Territory of Ruanda- Urundi and to that of divesting ft of all rights and powers with respecttothis Trust Terrltory. The people of Ruanda-Urundi should be grantedcompletefreedom and independence without further delay. 38. The Soviet delegation hopes that these demands. which in preaent circumstances CODStitute a minimum. will be supported by the Security Council,for the main objective is to bring about a peacefulsettlement of the Congo problem and to counteract developments in the Trvl/t; Territory of Ruanda-Urundi which are not in the intt...·ests of peace. 39. The Sovi"'t delegation is f course, aware of the actual situation in the Councl1, but it believes t3lat if the Western Powers are prepared to take serious account ofthe explosive situation in centralAfrica, they are bound to draw the appropriate conclusions. 40. The policy of Belgium towards the Congo and Ruanda-Urundi Is s(' completely discreditedthatitcan no longer be tolerated by any one. In these circumstances. a refusaIto supportproposaIs whichare solely designed to put an end to the iniquitous policy of the present Belgian Government towards the Republic of the Congo and the people of Ruanda-Urundi would be evidence of a hopeless att.emptto maintain colonialism in the heart of Africa and of the daslre, which has been condemned by all peoples. to bring about international conflicts. fraught with the gravest consequences for mankind. 41. We should like to believe thatthe Security Council will appreciate Its great responsibilityfor thf3 preservation of peace and will adopt a resolution which will ensure peaca. independence and security to the people of the Congo and ta the other peoplesof the awakening African continent.

the representative of the Soviet Union has justindulged in a lengthy and virulent diatribeagainst Belgium. I do not intend to answer point by point the fantastic accusattons which he bas made andwhichleavethe Belgian delegation quite unmoved. The Soviet delegation has established a sort oftraditionthat consiste ofexaggerating beyond aU measure a few minorfacts or incidents in the Congo, in which it manages, rightlyor wrongly. 10 43. However, these pbantasmal crimes are simply the product of Soviet imagination. The Soviet delegation usually indulges in these gratuitous statements. these ,slanderous allegations and these grotesque inventions when some aspect of the Congo question is under consideration by an organ ofthe United Nations. This time, the Soviet Government bas been more zealous in its campaign of calumny. It took the initi.ative of calling, while the Secretary-General W'J.S absent from New York, for an urgent meeting of the Security Council to examine a ao-caIled serious tbreat ta international peace resulting from an alleged Belgian aggression against the Republic of the Congo and from an alleged vIolation of the Trusteeship Agreementand the General Assembly resolutions concerning Ruanda-Urundi. 44. 'The Soviet notes and statementsallege participation by the Belgian Government in the action of what the Soviet delegation describes as IIMobutu's armed gangs" against the forces supporting what it calls "the legal Government of the Republic ofthe Congoll • which, for thatdelegation, ia the Government of Mr. Lumumba, imprlsoned by the legal auth,dties of the Congo. Belgian mercenaries and Belgian soldiers are presented as participants in these aggressive acts. According to the Soviet delegation, these acts are continuing, despite the representations made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Belgian authorities are accused of no less thanofhaving taken a direct part in the preparation of an armed attack against the Congo. 45. Let us fiji.!e what the aIleged Belgian aggression really is. We should briefly review the facts. On 30 Decemher last the Secretary-General informed the Permanent Mission of Belgium to the United Nations that, according to information which he had received, the Congolese authorities had requested the Belgian Government, througb its Embassy at Brazza~ ville, to allow the airfield at Usumbura to he used by troops of the Armée nationale congolaise (ANC) proceeding to the Bukavu: area. 46. In fact. the Belgian Government was informed of this request only at the moment when It learnt that a contingent of the ANC bad landed at Usumbura. The commander of tbis contingent was carrying a photographic print of the telegram which, signed by the Pregident of the Republic of the Congo. had been addressed to the Belgian Embassyat Brazzaville. This telegram stated that on that very day» as part of an urgent operation for the rellef of troops at Bukavu, certain contingents of the ANC would be sentby air to Kivu. and that for this purpose itwas essential for the transit of these contingents through Usumburaairport to be authorlzed. The telegram from the Head of the Congolese State requested that the necessaryauthorizatiOD he granted, so that "arrangements mayhe made for the transit operations to he carried out in the normal wayl'l. 47. The Belgian Government-which. as 1 have just pointed .Jut, received its information at the very 48. These are the evants which the Soviet Union has described as aggression against the Republic of the Congo. What was the instrument of tMs' aggression?A hundred men of the ANC sent to Kivu on the initiative of the Congolese Head of State, whose authorlty had been formally recogr.lzed by the General Assembly at its fifteenth session. Astrangeact ofaggression,thenr-.pparently perpetrated against the Congo by a small contingent of its own national army, transported from one point in Congolese territory toanotherwitha view to restoring order! Perhaps the Head ofthe Congolese state, or his representativa to the United Nations in New York, should be consulted, for the purpose of es"9.blishing whether he considers that an aet of at;gression has been commltted against his country. J 49. In the clrcumstances of the case, the Belgian authorities were phyoicaUy unable to take any action otber than that wNch they in hct took.Any other attitude ontheir part ouldhave had serious consequences. It might of course he suggested that they should have disarmed and captured, if necessal'Y by force, this contingent of the Congolese regular army. Suchaction would have involved a dangertointernational peace and security far greater than that represented by the fact of reconducting the contingent to the territory of the Republic of the Congo. 50. Naturally, if the incident had involved, not regll1ar forces of the Armêe nationale congolaise under the orders of the rightful authorities, butirregularforces acting on hahalf of authoritiEls hostile to the President of the Republic, the Soviet Union would have reacted quite d1fferently. It would have praised the Belgian Government and considered that we were acting in accordance with the Securlty Councilresolution S/4405 cf 22 July 1960, requesting States to reL-ain fl'om any act which might tend to impede the restoration of public or:ier andthe exercise by the Congolese Government of Us authority. 51. The Soviet delegation further maintains that the activitieB complained of are continuing. The Belgian Government has already stated-and 1 am ip.a position to repeat Ws formally here-that there are no longer any Congolese soldiers in the Territory of Ruanda- Urundi. The local authorit1es have been instructed to oppose, infuture,anyunauthorizedtransit. The Belgian Govemment does nùt intend to authorize any further transit. 52. 1also wish tostressthat,contrarytothe slanderouo allegations made by the Soviet Union, the Belgian G1>ve1"J1JI1ent has never intended to use, for operations outside Ruanda-Urundi, the Belgian troops stationed in tbat Trust Territory for the purpose of maintaining arder there. 1 wish torepeathere,formally, ~t tbese troops will in no casetakeanyactionoutside the Trust Territory. 53. The :representative of the Soviet Union has re.. peated here the accusation made by the Indian repre- 54. This ia the mighty concentration of troops which, according to the Soviet representative, is converting the Trust Territoryintoa miC.tary base for aggresslonl 55. The representative of the Soviet Union has also thought fit to introduce into thls debate on the Congo the question of the status and future of the Ruanda- Urundi Trust Territory. He aska the United Nations ta divest Belgium of its rights and powers in Ruanda- Urundi. and reques\,s that independence he immediately granted to this Territory. 56. l may retum ta this important question ata 1ater stage. For the time being, l will merely point out that the Belgian delegation has aIready made, during the General Assembly's füteenth session and in accordance with the regular procedure. the necessnry statements on this matter. It has described Belgium's intentiotls concerning the process and stages whereby the Ruanda-Urundi trusteeshlp should shortly be terminated, naturally with due regard ta the legal procedures specified in this connexion. l cannot do better than :refel' to the Belgian delegation's detailed state.. ments on this subject to the Fourth Committeeparticularly the statement made on the 25thNovember at the 1065th meeting, and the statements which the members of the Security Council will find in the summary records of the meetings ofthe Fourth Committee on 7 and 17 December 1P ~O. ~ ' 57. Belgium. therefore, bas been and still ia anxious to fulfil the obligations which it assumed under the Charter andthe Trusteeship Agreement,and to observe the constitutional procedures governlng Trust Territories and tIleir progress towards independence. 58. l would add that, in his statement to the Fourth Committee on 25 November last. the representative of Belgium was able to say that it was plannad to grant Independence to the Trust Tarritory of Ruanda-Urundi during the first six monthe of 1962. At this very jJ Ibid" Plenary Meetlngs, 956th meeting. ~ Ibid., Fourth Commlttee, l077th, l078th IlIId I092nd meetings. 59. To conclude. the Belgian Government rejects as completely unfounded the accusations once more levelled against itbythe Soviet Government. Obviously, the Government of the Soviet Union has its reasons for persistently abusing Belgium in this way. Such action constltutes a useful diversion for !t, and a smokescreen for its own activities. Belgium's actions are taken in the light of day, and are known to all. 60. The explanations which 1have gi'l.'en will, 1 hope, serve ta bring members of the 8ecurlty Council back to the facts and enable the Council to consider these in their true Ught. The Belgian delegation does not doubt that the members of the 8ecurity Council will glve, ta the unjust accusations ofthe Sovletdelegation, the treatment they deserve. 1 J 1 The nlf~eting rose at 1.10 p.m.