S/PV.987 Security Council

The provisional agenda for this meeting is in document S/Agenda/987, Is there any objection to the adoption of that agenda?

The delegation of the Soviet Union wishes to state that it is against the adoption of the agenda for the following reasons. The letter, from the Portuguese representative dated 18 December 1961, [S/5030], which is the only docu~ ment submitted for our consideration, qualifies the events which have occurred and ure still occurring in Goa as an aggression on the part of India and a violation of the sovereign rights of Portugal and of the Charter of the United Nations. 3. The Soviet delegation cannot agree with that evaluation and cannot regard that letter as a basis for a discussion of the question by the Security Council. In its opinion, the situation in territories which are part of a sovereign State cannot, under the Charter, be a subject for consideration by any United Nations body, including the Security Council. The present matter, in our view, is one which falls exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of India, because Goa and the other Portuguese colonies in Indian territory cannot be regarded as other than temporarily under the colonial domination of Portugal. These terri ries are linked with the Indian Union both by reason of their geographical position and by their history, culture, language and traditious. They were wrested from the Indian State at the time when the countries were establishing their colonial empires, and we can out marvel at the patience shown by the people of india with regard to those hotbeds of colonialism in their ierritory. t. Therefore, the question submitted by the representative of Portugal cannot be the basis for a dissussion of the whole problem in the Security Council. 1961 from Portugal contained in document S/5030. Even if the agenda is adopted, this will not mean that my delegation agrees with the contents of that letter. In any case, I shall explain my Government's position later. 7. In my capacity as PRESIDENT and ifno one wishes to speak, I shall put the agenda to the vote. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Chile, China, Ecuador, France, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: Ceylon, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Abstaining: Liberia, Unitea Arab Republic. The agenda was adopted by 7 votes to 2, with 2 abstentions, Letter dated 18 December 1961 from the Permanent Representative of Portugal to the President of the Security Council (S/5030)

In his letter of 18 December 1961 [S/5030)} the representa~ tive of Portugal asks to participate in the debate. In view of this request, and with the Council's agreement, I therefore invite the representative of Portugal to take a place at the Council table in order to participate, without a vote, in the discussion of the agenda item. 9. The representative of India has also asked to take part in the Council's debate. The text of his letter of 18 December 1961 will be circulated as document §/5031. I shail invite him to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Vasco V. Garin (Portugal) and Mr. C. S. Jha (India), took places at the Council table. 10. The PRESIDENT (translated from French]: The first speaker on my list is the representative of Portugal. I now call upon him.

It is not necessary for me to say--because the whole world knows it—that the Indian Union has committed a fully premeditated and unprovoked aggression against Portugal in Goa, and has thus violated the sovereign rights of Portugal and Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Charter of the United Nations. 12, In the face of the news in possession of my Government and on which the Press has alse given some information concerning the course of the invasion, I feel sure that the members of this Council will agree that this is no time for long speeches. However, in order to acquaint the Council with the recent back= ground of the brutal aggression committed against the Portuguese State of India by the Indian Union, I shall give a brief history of the case. 14. At the same time, and in a clearly prearranged concurrence of effort, the Indian Press, inspired by its Government, started a vicious campaign of vilification against Portugal, publishing reports about what they called "alteration in the situation in Goa", without ever indicating in what sense, mentioning repressions but never providing any proof whatsoever. 15. I had the honour in my letter of 6 September also to deny categorically and repudiate with the utmost vigour all the insinuations concerning the situation in Goa, assuring the Security Council that life in the Portuguese territory of India was perfectly normal, that economic and social development was pro~ gressing steadily and that, therefore, the statements made by the Indian Union did not conform to the truth, As regards the threat of aggression, I stated in the same, letter that the Portuguese Government had instructed me to refer the facts which it contained to the Security Council as the protecting organ of international peace—which it should be in this case as in others—and calling these facts to the attention of the Council and its members. In view of the seriousness of the charges then being made by the Government and Press of the Indian Union, coupled with the threat of aggression, I solemnly declared in the name of my Government that the Portuguese State of India was open to all who, with impartial minds, might wish to observe the conditions of life in that territory and invited world personalities who might wish to do so to visit the territory and examine in loco the facts for themselves. 16. Since then, the campaign conducted in the Indian Union against Portugal has been intensified day by day, and this led the delegation of Portugal to declare in the General Assembly on 4 October 19612/ that threats of aggression had been made by Indian statesmen and that cynicism had permitted Indian sources, both official and unofficial, to invent all kinds of accusations concerning events in Goa which had never taken place. 17, On 8 December 1961, again under instructions from my Government, I had the honour to address another letter to the Security Council [S/5016], this time calling the attention of this august body to news of a far more serious nature inasmuch as, from threats of aggression, the Indian Union was giving clear signs of its determination to make a cowardly attack on the tiny Portuguese territories of Goa, Plenary Meetings, 1025th meeting. included bombing by air, and in this connexion the Indian Defence Minister declared in New Delhi on 7 December, in a speech in Parliament, that the Indian Air Force had been alerted and five air squadrons had been concentrated around Goa. In that same letter details were given of violations of Portuguese air space, as well as of firing from Indian territory on a Portuguese village. Concurrently with these preparations, the Indian radio, Press and othe: media had intensified their violent campaign of false charges against Goa and against the Portuguese Government—this with the obvious aim of creating an emotional climate calculated to justify a premeditated aggression. 18, While bringing these facts to the notice of the Security Council for such purposes as the Council] might deem appropriate, the Portuguese Government noted that the concentrations of military forces-—naval, land and air—could find an explanation only in the Indian objective of the violent conquest of a foreign territory by force of arms. In the circumstances, the Portuguese Government considered that it was being made a vic~ tim of unprovoked aggression on the part ofthe Indian Union and that, in accordance with the general principles and of the unequivocal letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, such aggression constituted a grave threat to peace and security. 19. Again, on 11 December [S/5018], I had the honour to address a letter to the President of the Security Council, giving him further details of evident preparations by India for the invasion of Goa. Thus, the 50th Brigade of Indian paratroopers, numbering over 2,000 men, had been sent to Poona, within easy reach of the Portuguese frontier. Infantry units and armoured formations had been sent to Belgaum, close to the Portuguese frontier. The command of the forces was entrusted to Lieut. Gen. J. N. Chaudhuri, who incidentally, had led the Indian forces which invaded Hyderabad, under circumstances of which this Council is aware in connexion with another case. At the same time, Indian army forces were intensifying violations of the Portuguese frontier and air space inan attitude of clear provocation. This went to the point of their sending armed men into Portuguese territory in order to have them firing into Indian territory, simulating Portuguese provocation. Military and civilian preparations previous to an attack were being observed near the Portuguese frontiers, and my Government wished me to acquaint the Security Council with this situation, which I did. I then emphasized thai the Portuguese forces had refrained from answering the many provocations to which they were subjected, in order to prove their peaceful intentions. I ended my letter by stating that the Portuguese Government considered imminent a military aggression and attack by the Indian Government on Portuguese territory and, under Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations, wanted to bring it to the attention of 21. In the meantime, foreign correspondents had arrived on the scene and independent impartiai re~ ports started coming, confirming the massive concentration of troops onthe Indian Union side, the campaign of false charges of conditions of unrest in the Por~ tuguese State of India, and the clear attempts made by the Government of the Indian Union to stir up emotions conducive to a warlike atmosphere, at least around Goa, since international public opinion would never be so naive as to believe in Mr. Krishna Menon's cynical statements concerning the dangers posed by Goa to the security of the Indian Union, the responsibility for which he hoids in the New Delhi Cabinet. I could quote many dispatches carried by the international Press in the last five days or so, but I shall not burden members of the Council with such details at this stage. 22, Suffice it to say that even organs of the Press, which are not usually known for their particular sympathy for my country—and which have been staunch admirers of Mr. Nehru's peace-loving preachings, delivered in the intervals between the aggressive actions of the Indian Union—realized that the Indian Union was on the verge of launching an unprovoked attack on Goa, for reasons of their own, as to which the general consensus was that they were linked, above all, if not solely, with well known difficulties Mr. Nehru and Mr. Menon are having within their own country, Be that as it may, the important fact is that, by the middle of last week, enough information was publicly known to leave no doubt asto the warlike intentions of the Indian Union and to the seriousness of the situation. It was, no doubt, this evaluation of the events that prompted the acting Secretary—General to address an appeal to both sides to ensure that the situation did not deteriorate to such an extent that it might constitute a threat to peace and security, It is common knowledge that the President of the United States, and the Governments of the United Kingdom, Brazil, Spain and other countries, joined in appealing to Mr, Nehru not to use forceagainstGoa, In response to the Secretary-General's telegram, the Prime Min~ ister of Portugal replied on 16 December, stating that the Portuguese Government appreciated the urgency of the appeal and had given strict instructions to the Portuguese forces not to undertake or even reply to any acts of provocation, The Prime Minister of Portugal regretted that India, which repeatedly had alleged provocation from the Portuguese side, had not accepted our proposal, addressed to New Delhi on 8 December, that international observers follow the events on the frontiers, He announced Portugal's readiness to negotiate on problems that might exist between both countries, including international guarantees for the security of the Indian Union, since for the last twelve years the Indian Union has kept repeating that tiny Goa is a threat to its security, and added that such negotiations could take place where and how the Government of New Delhi wished. sized, in connexion with the raid on the airport,. that there is no military air force in Goa, Other targets of the bombing raids were the ofl tanks, which burst into flames, throwing up tongues of fire into the inhabited areas some distance away, Numerous casualties have been reported as a result of the fires thus caused, Foreign residents in Mormug&o are known to have commented bitterly on the inhuman brutality of the Indian air attacks, which they describe as designed to strike terror among the civilians and lead them not to co-operate with the authorities. This has not hap~ pened, but the opinion of those foreigners has been corroborated by the fact that Indian military planes have likewise carried out wanton and ruthless bombing raids against rural areas which do not have the slightest strategic value, a4, The Indian. land forces are meanwhile known to be advancing towards Bicholim, a Goan town situated some three miles from the frontier, Although the Portuguese forces are heavily outnumbered, they are fighting a delaying action, trying to retard the advance of the enemy by cutting off road communications. 25. This is th. information available so far to my delegation, But I must stress that, even as we are talking, Indian invaders are dealing death in Goa, and therefore I am forced to be brief. 26, The Indian Union has in the past and will again, no doubt, invent all kinds of pretexts to explain away its brazen disregard of international morality and of the Charter of the United Nations. No one who has followed the speeches of the Indian leaders since August and the course of events during the past two weeks can have the slightest doubt that this aggression has been premeditated cynically and in cold blood. Whatever the Indian pretext to invade the Portuguese territorities, it can have no justification in the eyes of men who have some regard for moral and juridical values, I must remind this Council that this will not be the first time a horrid crime against humanity will be sought to be explained away with deceitful subterfuges. Nor will it be the first time the Indian Union itseif will be trying to explain away its shameless and entirely unwarranted aggression against a peaceful and peace-loving population. Everybody knows that the Indian Union was determined to seize Goa by force. This crime is now under way. Given the antecedents of the case, there can be no justification for this sible action of the Indian Union in the only way consistent with the ideals of the United Nations, namely, by ordering an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal forthwith from the Portuguese territories of Goa, Daméao and Diu of all the invading forces, 28. The conscience of mankind is shocked. World public opinion has expressed itself in nounmistakable terms, expecting that the Security Council will immediately denounce and rectify this new lawless action of the Indian Government. The eyes of the world are focused on you, waiting for you to take the obvious decision, condemnation of the Indian Union, and the obvious measures for an immediate cease-fire to stop bloodshed, together with the immediate withdrawal from the whole of Portuguese territory of Indian forces, in fulfilment of the Security Council's duty, 29, My. JHA (India): Permit me, first of all, to thank the President and the Council for allowing my dele~- gation to participate in the meetings of the Council. 30, For the present, I would make certain preliminary observations, reserving my right to speak in much greater detail at a subsequent meeting of the Council, 31. As I heard the representative of Portugal, I was reminded of another occasion in the Security Council, not very long ago, when the representative of Portugal, no doubt under instructions from his Government, launched a terrific tirade against some members of the Council, against the African peoples and African countries, for what he thought was great injustice, persecution and armed action against the Portuguese in respect of what he described as the Portuguese overseas province of Angola, He has talked in more or less the same strain today. But members ofthe Council will remember the reaction of the Portuguese representative at that time and will no doubt remember the record of Portuguese colonialism in all parts of the world, particularly in Africa, and will necessarily discount this statement in an appropriate manner, 32. Portugal has appeared before the Council as an aggrieved party, as a victim of aggression, It has its own point of view, and its point of view is the point of view of a colonial Power of 400 yearsago. No one who had listened to the representative of Portugal can have failed to observe that this is an echo of the past. He talks of aggression, he talks of India's having aggressed against Portuguese territories, he talks of the sovereign rights of Portugal and of the Charter of the United Nations in his letter of 18 December 1961 to the President of the Council [S/5030], as a result of which this meeting has been called. 33. The representative of the Soviet Union has already drawn attention to the completely unacceptable character of the expression "the sovereign rights of Portugal and the Charter of the United Nations", Who gave Portugal sovereign rights over the part of India which it is occupying illegally and by force? Who gave Portugal that right? Not the people of India. Where do the 34. I would beg the Council to realize the fumdamental implications of the question that is before it, because without that realization the Security Council would not only be making a great mistake but would be perpetrating a fundamental injustice against the world of today, the world as we know it, against the resolutions ... (At the point there was an interruption from the public gallery.) 35, The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I apologize to the representative of India for the disturbance which has just taken place and I ask him to continue, 36, Mr. JHA (India): Thank you, Mr. President. Even. this interruption shows the tremendous concentration of certain reactionary forces within these four walls, With your permission, I will continue my statement, 37, Now, these so-called sovereign rights of the Por-~ tuguese Government in India~what do they derive from? They derive from a naked, unabashed application of force, chicanery and trickery inflicted on the people of India 450 years ago, How didthe Portuguese come to be in India? How did the British, for that matter, come to be in India? How did the French come to be in India, and the rest of the long line of aspirants from Europe who wished to dominate Asia and who did, unfortunately, dominate Asia, and later Africa? How did they come to be there? It was a process of pure and simple conquest, In the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, my country was subjected toa most insidious process of division, conquest and vivisection. When the colonial Powers came there, the representatives of those European Powers first came as traders, They were received hospitably by our people and by the rulers, who had a great deal of decency in them and who wanted to be hospitable to these emissaries coming from different countries, But soon the guests became the masters. They nibbled away at our territories; they set up ruler against ruler, people against people. They intrigued with quislings—and unfortunately, the facility with which colonialism can raise quislings is something truly remarkable, They started putting pressure on the principalities, the decaying principalities of those days, with armed force and with superior armament, All this brought about the familiar process, the phenomenon so familiar in Asia and Africa of peoples being deprived of their rights, of their lands and of their freedom. Asia and Africa underwent the most ruthless process of division, of vivisection, a process which not only impoverished them economically but practically emasculated them, corroded their souls, made them victims of corruption, 39, That was the experience we have gone through, My country has never accepted and will never accept any legal, moral or ethical basis for the processes by which India became colonized, came under foreign domination; and if this colonial conquest, if the destruction of the integrity of India, if the vivisection of India was immoral and illegal ab initio, how can it be moral and legal today? Let us not forget that today, we are living in the twentieth century and the greatest thing that has happened in this twentieth century is that no longer can colonialism be tolerated, whether in Asia, in Africa or in Latin America or anywhere else, 40, That is the situation with which we are faced. It must be realized that this is a colonial question, It is a question of getting rid of the last vestiges of colo~ nialism in India, That is a matter of faith with us. Whatever anyone else may thitt:, Charter or no Charter, Council or no Council, thatis auriasic faith which we cannot afford to give up at any cost. It was for that reason that soon after our independence in 1947—and I may add here, independence that was achieved in a peaceful process, in agreement with the British—we started negotiations with France for ending French colonialism in India, The negotiations took several years, it istrue, but they were conductedin a generally friendly spirit, a spirit of give and take, and in 1954 we reached agreement with France with regard to the transfer of the administration of those territories the de facto transfer of the French possessions in India to the Republic of India. The deed of that transfer has not yet been made, but I have no doubt it will soon be realized because this whole arrangement was entered into on the basis of mutual understanding and ina peaceful manner, 41. In 1949 we established diplomatic relations with Portugal, We sent a high-powered representative to Portugal, and soon after we approached the Portuguese government with the request that they negotiate conserning the transfer of the Portuguese possessions in India, The answer was categorically negative, and it tas remained negative all these fourteen or fifteen years, Every time an approach has been made if has 42, In spite of all that, for the Portuguese this is part of Portugal, and they have refused to negotiate. They have refused to talk on any other basis. Even in their reply of 16 December 1961 to the Secretary- General's telegram they say; "As regards negotiations, the Portuguese Government has always expressed and now confirms its readiness to negotiate with the Indian Union solutions for all the problems arising from the close proximity between the territories of the Portuguese State of India and those of the Indian Union, including an international guarantee to the Indian Union that the Portuguese territory will not be used against the security of the Indian Union." 43. But that is not the point. The point is that this is a colonial territory which is a part of India—an inseparable part of India~and it must come back to India, The people of Goa must join their country in freedom and democracy. 44, That is the question. The question is not one of negotiating any agreement for coexistence, That is something which is completely against the famous General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) which says: "Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories ...to transfer all powers ...", 45, So the position is that the Indian Union has patiently, for fifteen years, been wanting to see the implementation of the irreversible processes of history. Because what the Portuguese are trying to do today is to stand against the tide of history, the rising tide of nationalism, of freedom in Asia and Africa; and if they find themselves in difficulties today it is they tnemselves who are to blame, 46, I have already said that this is a colonial question, in the sense that part of our country is illegally occupied by right of conquest by the Portuguese, The fact that they have occupied it for 450 years is of no consequence because, during nearly 425 or 430 years of that period we really had no chance to do anything because we were under colonial domination ourselves. But during the last fourteen years, from the very day when we became independent, we have not ceased to demand the return of the peoples under illegal domination to their own countrymen, to share their independence, their march forward to their destiny. I would like to put this matter very clearly before the Council: that Portugal has noe sovereign right over this territory. There is no legal frontier—there can 47, That is the situation that we have to face, If any narrow-minded, legalistic considerations —considerations arising from international law as written by European law writers—should arise, those writers were, after all, brought up in the atmosphere of colonialism, I pay all respect due to Grotius, who is supposed to be the father of international law, and we accept many tenets of international law. They are certainly regulating international life today. But the tenet which says, and which is quoted in support of colonial Powers having sovereign rights over territories which they won by conquest in Asia and Africa is ne longer acceptable, It is the European concept and it must die, It is time, in the twentieth century, that it died, 48, The representative of Portugal has spoken as if Goa were a complete paradise on earth, that nothing had happened there, that the people were all contented yet were threatened by mighty ones trying to bring them under submission, Nothing could be further from the truth, During its 450 years Portugal has had to face more than twenty armed revolts in her Indian enclaves, Some of these were organized by Catholic priests themselves. All the revolts were brutally put down, and if one does not hear of the patriotic movement in Goa, if one has only heard of it intermittently, it is not because there is no such movement, but because the suppression has been so ruthless, so total, and because censorship has been so total that news has not been able to come out of Goa. And how can one expect a handful of people, after all, to fight perpetually against a mighty colonial Power, today the second largest colonial empire in the world? That is why the outside world has not heard much about it, but we in India know of it. We can feel it. They are our own people, One hundred thousand Goans are in Bombay; they are in touch with their own people; they exchange correspondence, The hundred thousands Goans in Bombay iive happily, make money, and send money to their own peopis in Goa. They are treated on all fours with—they have always been treated as—Indians, in all respects. There has been no distinction of any kind, They can join any of the services. In fact, many of them are distinguished civil servants, or distinguished officers in our army, We have never drawn any distinction between an Indian in Goa and an Indian in India. 49, That is the situation, This whole movement has gone on in spite of the terrific suppression exercised by the Portuguese. In 1954, nearly one thousand Goan Satyagrahis marched from India unarmed, That was a movement of passive non-resistance, of non-violent non-~co-operation. They marched inte Goa, and 400 of them were just mown down by machine-gun fire, It is not very easy for an unarmed people to walk into the mouths of machine-guns, It requires courage, It They have turned a deaf ear. 51. It appears as though Powers friendly to Portugal have also counselled Portugal at times, although we do not know the full details, That is what we are told, But it is quite possible that if those countries which today pretend to be shocked had used more influence with “Mortugal to persuade it to see the light there would not have been any reason for us and Portugal to have anything but the kind of relations we have with the United Kingdom and with France—because today we have good and friendly relations with those countries, although they were our colonial masters until some years ago. Had Portugal not received direct or indirect support, both moral and material, from the NATO countries, it would not have been as recalcitrant as it has shown itself to be, Iam sorry to have to say this, but it is a fact that we are the victims of a pe-~ culiar combination of circumstances elsewhere which has delayed the completion of the freedom of India, 52. Coming now to the various letters thatwere cited by the representative of Portugal, our position is as it has been clearly stated in the three letters that we addressed to the President of the Security Council (8/8020, 8/5022, S/5023} and I will beg the members of the Council to read these letters, Itis not India that has engaged in provocation; it is Portugal that has done so, Even the Portuguese cannot deny that they fired on one of our coastal steamers whichwas plying peacefully on a regularly scheduled service and that one of the officers was killed, They cannot deny that they fired on one of our fishing boats, killing one fisherman and damaging the boat, These were the first incidents that took place; these were the provocative acts which were followed by others, and the provocation has come from the Portuguese side, I want to impress that on the members of the Council. Let them read the documents. As a matter of fact, even while they were telling the Secretary~General that they had given rigorous instructions that nothing provocative should be done on their side, in the early hours of the morning of 17 December-—~according to a telegram [ have just receivedwhile the Secretary- General was appealing for a peaceful solution, a Portuguese colonialist force attacked Indian positions 400 yards into our territory and tried to destroy our police post at Nizampir, using grenades, machine-guns, and so forth. Our police were on patrol duty but returned upon hearing gun-fire and drove the attackers away. The attacking party left ammunition, including grenades, which all bear foreign marks. The post itself bears the marks of shots and grenade attacks, The attack was obviously a preliminary to the capturing of our Indian enclave. 54. On our side we have 100,000 Goans and Indians who want to go into Goa peacefully to redeem their rights of freedom, This is the situation with which we have been faced. We have either to shoot down our own people or to let them be shot by Portuguese soldiers, We have shown immense patience. I think there are very few examples of such patience by any country in similar circumstances. We have had to take the minimum measures necessary in order to ensure law and order, in order to see that civil administration is restored in Goa, 55. With your permission, I should like to read the relevant parts of a proclamation issued by our Government on the morning of 18 December: "To assist resistance movement, protect people from further Portuguese repression and restore law and order following the collapse of the colonial administration, instructions have been given to use the minimum force necessary to protect the sanctity of all places of worship, The primary task is to restore law and order and bring public services back to normal," 56, This is the objective of the Indian move. Nobody can accuse my Government, through the years, of having any but peaceful intentions; we are a peaceful people. That does not need to be proved. Anybody who is not prejudiced or blind will admit that. But there are situations when the vindication of justice and freedom becomes of paramount importance. Such is the situation which we now have to face, much against our wishes and very reluctantly. 57, The representative of Portugal mentioned that some Indian divisions, under the command of a Lieutenant-General, have gone into Goa. Goa, whichis a small territory of a little over 1,000 square miles, has concentrated 12,000 Portuguese soldiers. They have mined buildings inside Goa; they have mined the surrounding waters and they had a number of warships on the way which, thanks to the Government of the United Arab Republic, were not allowed to pass, according to our information, through the Suez Canal, If we took this action, it was because we had to take action of a substantial nature. How can we otherwise fight 12,000 soldiers who have made it quite clear that they will do everything in their power, that they 58. I am sorry I have taken so much of the time of the Council, but I would again repeat that the question the Council is facing has much greater and much deeper and much more fundamentai importance than is apparent on the surface, It is a question of colonialism, it is a question of freedom, 59, The representative of Portugal said that his Government is ready for negotiation. The necessity to negotiate is made clear in the Secretary-General's letter and in the resolutions based on the principles of the Charter and the principles formulated by the United Nations, notably resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1542 (XV). 60, If they were hone.t about it, if they had the regard for the Charter that they profess, they could have shown their willingness to negotiate on the basis of the principles formulated by the United Nations which the Secretary-General had put to them, Butthey have not done so, So they do not come to the Security Council with clean hands. We cannot accept the position that there is any legal frontier, that there can be any legal colonial frontier in our country or, for that matter, any country. India is one; Goa is an integral part of India, It is not Portuguese by any manner of means; it cannot be Portugvese, It has a population of about 600,000 or 700,000; 61 per cent of them profess the main religion of India, that is, Hinduism, About 31 per cent are Christians, but they are Indian Christians; and we have 12 million Christians in India, There are many Mohammedans; we have 45 million Mohammedans in India. We are a multireligious State and they are all Indians, These people have the same language, the same ethnic traditions; they inter-marry. They are the same people, they are part of our blood and flesh. To say that they are Portuguese is the greatest travesty that anyone could perpe-rate on the world and on this Council, 61. This is not a question of aggression, this cannot be a question of aggression, If anybody Lays it is, he is going against the tide of history, heis going against the entire thesis of the United Nations today, he is going against the tide of world history and public opinion because coloniulism no longer betolerated. There is no question th .t it is illegal and immoral, It was illegal in the beginning, it is illegal and immoral today, and that has got to be recognized. 62, The only thing that the Security Council could do is to tell Portugal to vacate Goa, Damo and Diu, those three enclaves on the Indian continent, and to give effect to the numerous resolutions of theGeneral Assembly with regard to the freedom of dependent peoples. 65, Mr. STEVENSON (United States of America): I should like to express the views of the United States at this fateful hour in the life of the United Nations. I will not detain you long, but long enough, I hope, to make clear our anxiety for the future of this Organization as a vesult of this incident. 66, When acts of violence take place between nations in this dangerous world, no matter where they occur or for what cause, there is reason for alarm. The news from Goa tells of such acts of violence, It is alarming news an‘, in our judgement, the Security Council has an urgent duty to act in the interests of international peace and security, 67, We know, as the world knows, and as has been said countless times in the General Assembly and the Security Council, that the winds of change are blowing all over the world, But the winds of change are man~made, and man can and must control them. They must not be allowed to become the bugles of war, 68, The preamble of the Charter states that the peoples are determined "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of wart, and "to practice tolerance and live together with one another as good neighbours", In that connexion, it deserves to be said that all of us at the United Nations owe much to India, 69, The largest contingent in the United Nations effort to establish peace in the Congo are the troops of India. India has also contributed of its resources in the Middle East. Few nations have done more to uphold the principles of this Organization or to support its peace-making efforis all over the world, and none has espoused non-violence more vehemently and invoked the peaceful symbolism of Gandhi more frequently, That nation is led by a manwhom I regard as a friend, who has been a lifelong disciple of one of the world's great saints of peace, whom many have looked up to as an apostle of non-violence and who only this year addressed this Assembly with a moving appeal for a United Nations Year of International Co-operation, 70. These facts make the step which has been taken today all the harder to understand and condone, The fact is, and the Indian Government has announced it, that Indian armed forces early this morning, on 18 December, marched into the Portuguese territories of Goa, Damao, and Diu. Dam&o and Diu have been 72, Let it be perfectly clear what is at stake here; it is the question of the use of armed force by one State against another and against its will, an act elearly forbidden by the Charter. We have opposed such action in the past by our closest friends as well as by others, We opposed it in Norea in 1950, in Suez and in Hungary in 1956 and in the Congo in 1960. And we do so again in Goa in 1961. 73, The facts in this case are, unfortunately, all too clear, These territories have been under Portuguese dominion for over four centuries. They have been invaded by Indian armed forces. The Government of India regards these territories as having the same status as the territories of the United Kingdom and France on the sub-continent from which those coun= tries have voluntarily withdrawn, The Government of India has insisted that Portugal likewise withdraw. Portugal has refused, maintaining that it has a legal and moral right to these territories. 74. We have repeatedly urged both of the parties to this dispute to seek by peaceful processes the reso~ lution of a problem which has its roots in the colonial past. I do not at this time propose to concern myself with the merits of the dispute. We are not meeting here today to decide on the merits of this case; we are meeting to decide what attitude should be taken in this body when one of the Members of the United Nations casts aside the principles of the Charter and seeks to resolve a dispute by force. 75. But what is at stake today is not colonialism: it is a bold violation of one of the most basic principles in the United Nations Charter, stated in these words from Article 2, paragraph 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." 76. We realize fully the depths of the differences between India and Portugal concerning the future of Goa, We realize that India maintains that Goa by right should belong to India. Doubtless India would hold, therefore, that its action is aimed at a just end. But, if our Charter means anything, it means that States are obligated to renounce the use of force, are obligated to seek a solution of their differences by peaceful means, are obligated to utilize the procedures of the United Nations when other peaceful means have failed. 77. Mr. Nehru, the Prime Minister, has often said himself that no right end can be served by a wrong means. The Indian tradition of non-violence has inspired the whole world, but this act of force with which we are confronted today mocks the good faith 78, This action is all the more painful to my country because we have in recent weeks made repeated appeals to the Government of India to refrain from the use of force. These have included not only a series of diplomatic approaches in Washington and in New Delhi, but also a personal message from President Kennedy to Mr. Nehru on 13 December indicating our earnest hope that India would not resort to force to solve the Goa problem. As a culmination of these efforts, the United States Government last Saturday made an appeal to Mr. Nehru, both through the United States Ambassador in New Delhi and through the Indian Ambassador in Washington, to suspend prepa~ rations for the use of force, in connexion with a direct offer of United States help in seeking a peaceful solution of the problem. 79. This resort to armed action is a blow to international institutions, such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, which are available to assist in the adjustment of disputes. This is our principal concern. This body cannot apply a double standard with regard to the principle of resort to force. We appeal to India to recognize that its own national interests, as well as those of the entire world community, depend on the restoration of confidence in the processes of law and conciliation in international affairs. Indeed this tragic episode reveals clearly, if nothing else, the need for urgent review of peaceful settlement procedures to deal with the problems of peaceful change. My Government will have more to say about this at an appropriate occasion. 80. The Council has an urgent duty, in our judgement, to bring this dispute back from the battlefield, so fraught with danger for the world, to the negotiating table. We earnestly urge the Government of India to withdraw its armed forces from the territories they have invaded. We ea:::..3ily appeal for a cease-fire and we earnestly urge che Governments of India and of Portugal to enter into negotiations to achieve a solution, In our judgement, we must ask foran immediate cease-fire; we must insist on withdrawal of the invading forces; and we must insist that the two parties negotiate on the basis of the principles of the Charter; for the law of the Charter forbids the use of force in such matters. There is not one law for one part of the world and another law for the rest of the world; there is one law for the whole world, and 82. I do not intend to go into the merits of the long and complicated dispute between India and Portugal which has culminated in the present fighting in Goa and other Portuguese territories. All I would say on this is that my silence today on the legal and historical] issues involved in no way implies the acquiescence of my delegation in some of the arguments and statements which have been made at this table today. Nor dol accept that a principle or rule of international law becomes invalid because it had been established in, what the representative of India called, a colonialist era. For the presen: I shall say no more about this than that. 83. Be that as it may, during recent weeks we have watched with growing concern and anxiety the heightening of emotions and rising tension. I think it will be known to most members of this Council thata number of Governments, including my own, have strongly urged on both sides that they should refrain from provocation or the use of force. It seemed clear to us that no pos-=- sible gain to one side or the other could justify the danger to world peace which would certainly result from the outbreak of hostilities. We deeply regret that the Government of India has not felt able to heed these representations which were made in a spirit of deep and sincere friendship. 84. We do not underrate or discount in the least the strong feelings of many people in India at the continuance in the Indian subcontinent of these small areas still under foreign rule. These feelings have today found a forceful and eloquent spokesman in the representative of India. We recognize that the Government of India has in the past made efforts to settle them by direct negotiation with the Government of Portugal. I should like at this point to quote the words which were used in Parliament this afternoon by Mr. Duncan Sandys, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations: "We have long understood the natural desire of the Indian people to incorporate these territories in the Republic of India and their feelings of impatience that the Portuguese Government has not felt disposed to follow the example of Britain and France. Nevertheless, I must make it plain that Her Majesty's Government deeply deplore the decision of the Gov= ernment of India to use military force to achieve its political ob *«tives." 85. We had, therefore, hoped that these efforts at negotiation would continue despite delays andfrustra~ ",.. the outbreak of hostilities between a fellow member of the Commonwealth and a country bound to us by close ties of alliance places Her Majesty's Government in a most painful position. In addition, we are particularly concerned about the wider reper= cussions which the action taken in this case may have upon other problems which face the world today." 87, Lord Home, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, also this afternoon, said that the United Kingdom utterly deplored the use of force by India and expressed the view that the immediate and urgent step was to arrange for an end to the fighting. My delegation, therefore, believes that the right course for the Security Council now is to call at once for the cessation of hostilities and for negotiations. This would be the first essential step. The next step should be for the Government of India to withdraw its forces immediately. Thirdly, the Governments of India and Portugal should be encouraged to use peaceful means to work out a peaceful solution of their differences in accordance with the Charter. 88. The Council would also, in the opinion of my delegation, do well to invite the Secretary~General to give all appropriate help in the present difficult situa~ tion. My delegation would be willing to approve action taken by the Council in accordance with the principles I have just enumerated. We think the Council should lose no time and should take such action very soon indeed.

Again today we are confronted with one of the chronic problems inevitably arising from the notion of empire and grandeur as set in the twentieth century framework. Let me say that the sun has forever set on that day, and until this fact is universally recognized and accepted this Council will be troubled by the legacy of that institution of colonialism. 90. In the stage in which the world's peoples are universally voicing their aspirations for dignity, for freedom and for greater social justice, the last remnants of colonialism, no matter where they exist, are bound to create friction, danger and unrest. This is particularly true when such areas are located within an area in which the winds of change are blowing and have been blowing very strongly. 91. In the opinion of my delegation, thisis the proper background against which the question of Portuguese enclaves on the Indian subcontinent should be viewed. 32. There is again, of course, one additional! factor which we should all consider in this debate, and that is the position of Portugal in its claims that Goa and the other two enclaves are all part of metropolitan Portugal. That fact had been established in the letter addressed on 18 December to the President of the Security Council by the representative of Portugal [8/5030], in which he charges acts of aggression of the Indian Union against Portuguese territories in Goa and the other two enclaves. today. In so doing, Portugal has consistently refused to report to this Organization concerning its administration of these enclaves by clinging io the fiction that the peoples of Goa and the peoples of these other two enclaves live in Portugal and, therefore, are a part of Portugal. 94. We should never forget that the will of this Organization was expressed overwhelmingly in the General Assembly in the declaration on colonialism [resolution 1514 (XV)] in which the nations of the world went on record in condemning a continuation of colonialism and calling for its prompt termination, 95. In this context I am afraid that we may be drawn into a false debate about an Indian attack on Portugal or a violation of Portugal's sovereignty by India. If the basis for this discussion in the Security Council today is the letter of 18 December from the representative of Portugal to the Presideni of the Security Council, then there must be taken into consideration the fact that this Council, which is part of the United Nations, cannot overlook the fact that General Assembly resolution 1542 (XV) placed these enclaves within the category of Non-Self-Governing Territories. If the Council accepts the fact that these enclaves are Non~Self-Governing Territories, then how can we, in the same breath, agree that India has committed aggression on Portuguese territory, when these three enclaves are not part of Portuguese territory? Thus I am ‘afraid that we may be drawn into a false debate here today by taking any decision, based upon the letter of the representative of Portugal to the Security Council, that India has committed aggression against Portuguese territory. I reaffirm what I have said, namely, that these enclaves are not Portuguese territory. According to resolution 1542 (XV) they are Non~ Self-Governing Territories and the Council could not, with any degree of seriousness or legality, take a decision to condemn India for aggression against Por= tuguese territory when these Territories are not part of Portugal. 96. What should be considered here, in my opinion, is Portuguese domination over Indian people, which has been maintained for five and a half centuries, and Portugal's intractable unwillingness to recognize that a new day has indeed dawned and gracefully to accept that day by eliminating obvious sources of international instability and unrest. 97. We would have hoped that Portugal, along with some other States, would have joined in the massive efforts to redress whatever wrongs may have been done in the past and to establish a new world framework in which all nations would co-operate in striving to satisfy the universal yearnings of man for dignity, for freedom, for prosperity and for peace. 98. My delegation regrets exceedingly that the situa~ tion has deteriorated to the point where action other than peaceful means has been taken to pacify a situation resulting from the intransigence of Portugal in maintaining that these enclaves, located on the sub= continent of India, constitute a part of Portugal located on the continent of Europe. 100, The statement of the representative of India, according to which international law was made by Europeans, and the implication that it can be transgressed by others, is also unacceptable to my delegation. The Charter of the United Nations was the result of common efforts by all the founding Members, including India, and in any case it has been signed and ratified by all its Members as the only hope for saving humanity from the disasters of war. 101. On questions regarding the supplying of inforrna~ tion by Portugal on its overseas territories, on the question of Angola as hitherto presented to the Gen~ eral Assembly, my delegation voted against the position adopted by Portugal. On the question of armed action for the settlement of the present dispute, we are categorically opposed to such action, whatever the merits of the case, of which the Council is not seized in the present debate. What the Security Council is faced with at this moment is the question of what action, what attitude, it should adopt when armed force is used to settle a dispute between two Member States of this Organization. This is a problem so vital for the future of the United Nations, indeed for the future of humanity, that my delegation cannot adopt any standard which would be different from our attitude in all--and I wish to emphasize the word "all"—previous similar situations. 102. In brief, we urge strongly an immediate ceasefire, and we urge the resumption of positions held prior to the armed attack and the resumption of negotiations between the parties for a peaceful settlement of their differences, as prescribed by the Charter of the United Nations. 103. Before I conclude, I wish, on behalf of my delegation, to congratulate our Secretary~General for the _fforts which he has deployed in the case now before us.

The course of the discussion of this matter has confirmed the preliminary view which we expressed at the beginning of the meeting during the discussion of the agenda, namely, that the question raised by the representative of Portugal is not, strictly speaking, within the jurisdiction of the Security Council. However, since the question has been raised and since various aspects of it have been commented upon, the USSR delegation considers it necessary to indicate at the very outset that, if any- 105. Thus, we can discuss Portugal's violation of that Declaration and of the resolution, based on that Declaration, adopted by the Security Council on 9 June of this year in connexion with Angola.2/ These resolutions were binding on the Government of Portugal, but that Government rejected them, instead of complying with them. 106. In that connexion I should like to draw attention to two striking facts. When Portugal exterminates tens and hundreds of thousands of Angolan citizens, the United States and the United Kingdom do not condemn it; they do not say that is is infringing the United Nations Charter, they do not call its acts aggression, and they do not propose making Portugal cease fighting in Angola and withdraw its troops from Angola and from its other colonies. 107. But when it is a question of helping a people and a territory which form an integral part of the people and territory of India to free themselves from colonial domination, we immediately hear loud protests about a violation of the United Nations Charter, con~ demnatory speeches and appeals for an immediate cease-fire and the withdrawal of troops. 108. These are two facts which are clearly incom~ patible. Since the United States representative said that there cannot be two standards in applying the Charter, I should like to ask him: Why, then, do you have two standards? When it is a questionof assisting colonial peoples fighting for their liberation you apply one standard, the standard of the colonialist Powers, and when it is aquestion of condemning the Portuguese colonial empire, you help that empire and condemn those who are fighting against it andfor the implementation of the Declaration adopted by the whole Assembly, and of the resolution for which you voted this year. Last year you did not vote for the Declaration, but this year you voted in favour of the resolution regarding the implementation of the Declaration [1654 (XVI)]. Although you voted for that resolution concern~ ing the liberation of colonial countries and peoples, you are nevertheless immediately apprehensive when those countries and peoples begin to struggle actively for their liberation. 109. There is a second point to which I wish to draw attention. When Mr. Stevenson enumerated the in-~ stances when the United States had opposed the use of force, stressing that the United States had always opposed the use of force, for some reason he omitted certain facts which are kcown to everyone and which should not be overlc.okefe forgot, for example, about the use of force in 1958 when the United States Navy ciples of the United States are as follows: this is in line with the Charter, this is in line with the purposes of the United Nations, it does not contravene the provisions of the Charter or the principles of the United Nations. Yet there is a double contravention there: the use of force as such, and the use of force against peoples fighting for their freedom. 110. Thus, in our discussion of the question of Goa, the Liberian representative was entirely right when he said that the question is primarily a colonial one, it is a colonial problem, it is a legacy of colonialism by which we are still troubled. Speaking of the attitude of the Powers on this question, you have to take a clear stand: do you support the colonial Powers which are doing their utmost to retain their colonial domina~ tion and are fighting against the peoples struggling for their freedom, or are you on the side of the colonial peoples which, in implementation of the Declaration which you now approve, seek to achieve their libera~ tion as soon as possible? 111. what we have heard today is evidence of the fact that the United States and the United Kingdom are supporting their NATO ally, Portugal, a colonial Power, in the stand it is taking against the people it has enslaved, Here is a case of their open solidarity with the colonialists against the colonized peoples; this is an actual fact which has to be taken into account. 112. As regards our own position, we openly declare that we side with the people of India, with the people of Goa who are fighting to free themselves from Portugal's colonial domination. This position may not be to the liking of some, but we consider it necessary to state it openly before the whole world. Weare against the colonialists, against the colonial Powers which are trying to keep their colonies despite the fact that the General Assembly by an overwhelming majority. approved the Declaration on the speedy, the imme~ diate, granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, and that it confirmed that Declaration in a resolution passed this year and took a number of measures to accelerate that process. 113. What then, in our opinion, should be done to ensure that the process of liberation from colonial dependence shall be rapid and less painful? First, it seems to us that we must above all assist, not in words but in deeds, in the abolition of the coionial system wherever remnants of that system are still to be found. Secondly, that process should be hastened and not held back; no attempt shouldbe made by means of interminable negotiations and compromises to delay that inexorable process of liberation. The longer it is "For this reason, we are appealing to the good sense and the foresight of the peoples ofthe Western countries, to their Governments and representatives at this Assembly of the United Nations: let us agree on steps to liquidate the colonial system of governmént and so speed up this natural historical process; let us do everything to ensure thatthe peoples of the colonial and dependent countries attain equality of rights and become able to decide their own fate." 4 115. That was said last year. But what has Portugal done? What have the allies of Portugal done to accelerate that peaceful process as was proposed in the General Assembly? Nothing. Portugal categorically refused to enter into negotiations on any question, in~ cluding that of Angola and Goa, ov any of its other colonies. It said that it regarded the question as entirely unlawful. What, then, are we to do? Are the peoples to remain forever under the heel of the Portuguese colonists? This has been so for 500 years, and you wish it to continue for another 500? Forgive me, but times have changed. The times have changed so much that the per ‘es are demanding to be freed if not voday, then tomurrow. And you will not hold back the people by any resolutions, any decisions, any attempts at devious compromises. 116. At that plenary meeting of the General Assembly Mr. Khrushchev went on to say: "We welcome the sacred struggle of the colonial peoples for their liberation. If the colonial Powers, instead of heeding the voice of reason, persist in their old colonial policy of keeping the colonial countries in subjection, the peoples which stand for the liquidation of the colonial régimes will have to give all possible help to those fighting for their independence against the colonialists and against colonial slavery. Moral, material and other assistance must be given so that the sacred and just struggle of the peoples for their independence can be brought to its conclusion."/ 117. That is why our attitude is one of sympathy with the people of India, the people of Goa. We appeal to the colonial Powers to listen to reason, we call on them to hasten the process of liberation of the colonial countries and peoples so as to avoid serious consequences in various territories where there are still millions of people suffering under colonial bondage. 118. Lastly, we must immediately cease ail aid to Portugal and apply sanctions to it, as provided for in the United Nations Charter, in order to compel it to carry out immediately the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples with respect to those which are still under the heel of the Portuguese colonialists. 5/ Ibid,, para. 223.

I should like to make a few preliminary remarks as the representative of the UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC, 121. I have listened carefully to the speeches by the representatives of Portugal and India. The former accused the Indian Union of aggression against Goa, Damo and Diu, maintaining that they were integral parts of Portugal and that this aggression was a violation of the territorial integrity ofthe Portuguese State. The representative of India replied what took place was the liberation of parts of Indian territory which were conquered by Portugal and which are in fact colonial territories; the question is therefore purely a colonial one. 122, As you know, India became independent in August 1947 following negotiations between the Gov~ ernment of the United Kingdom and the Indian political leaders. 123, France and Portugal had certain colonial possessions in Indian iarritory. The Government of India immediately began negotiations with France for the liberation of Indian territory under French domination, which consisted of a few French "comptoirs". As a result of these negotiations the French Government agreed in October 1954 to transfer the defacto admin~ istration of the French "comptoirs"® in the Indian territory to the Indian Government. 124. In 1949 the Indian Government sent a diplomatic mission to Portugal to begin negotiations for the peaceful transfer of Portuguese colonies in Indian territory. At the time the Portuguese Government unfortunately refused to discuss the question. It refused to consider the possibility of ending its colonial domination over its few enclaves in Indian territory. 125. I should like first to emphasize that we do not consider that the territories of Goa, Dam&o and Diu are integral parts of Portugal, as that country's representative maintains. Portugal conquered these territories some four centuries ago and it was the Portuguese Government itself which decided unilater~ ally that Goa and the other enclaves were integral parts of Portugal and constituted a Portuguese province. The peoples of the territories never had an opportunity to give their views on the unilateral decision. They never had the right of self-determination and were not consulted on whether they agreed to their integration with Portugal. In this connexion we should not forget that the distance between Portugal and these territories is enormous and that their inhabitants are very different in every way. Hence my delegation cannot agree to this legal interpretation, or rather fiction, put forward by Portugal. Moreover, it was decided in resolution 1542 (XV), of the General Assembly that "Goa and dependencies" were not a part of Portugal. Operative paragraph 1 of that resolution reads: Charter: tt "(g) Goa and dependencies, called the State of India," Goa is mentioned in the list of territories considered non=self-governing. Operative paragraph 2 of the resolution states also: "that an obligation exists onthe part of the Government of Portugal to transmit information under Chapter XI of the Charter concerning these territories and that it should be discharged without further delay". 126. I need not remind you that Portugal has $0 far refused to implement this resolution. 127, It is clear that we are dealing with a colonial questio’ Colonialism, as we have had occasion to say here s.veral times, can only lead to suffering and loss of human life, thus endangering international peace and security. 128. If Portugal had begun to implement resolution 1514 (XV), which contains the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, we should not be faced with this problem. Operative paragraph 5 of that resolution states: "Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom." It should also be noted that the preambleto this reso~ lution reads: "Aware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, wrich constitute a serious threat to world peace." There is no doubt that the continuation of a state of affairs brought about by colonialism can only make it more difficult to solve this problem and must endanger international peace and security. In spite ofall India's appeals to settle this dispute peacefully and to solve the problem by negotiations, as it was solved with the United Kingdom and France, Portugal ha., not changed its policy. 129, Colonialism no longer has any place in the twentieth century. It is out of date and Goa deserves to be freed. This is not aggression and India is not an aggressive country. We should have preferred to

We are confronted with a very important problem, a problem of the utmost complexity, one in which the issues before us must be properly and clearly distinguished so as to avoid confusion in our own minds. i131. Indian forces have gone into Ges and other Portuguese enclaves. The question we have to consider is whether this action of the Indian Government constitutes aggression, a threat to international peace and security, or whether it is an act of Hberation of territories belonging to the Indian Union. In either case, the basic issue is the status ofthese territories. 182. In the view of my delegation, Goa, Damao and Diu are colonial territories which had no raison d'étre for existence a single day after the Indian Union took its place in the international community of Statesas a sovereign and free State. After a free India came into existence, the enclaves on the subcontinent which were held by foreign States were portions of Indianterritory unlawfully held by these States, In a historical sense and in a historical sense only is the case of the Portuguese enclaves in India a colonial question. After free India became a juridical and actual fact, the colonial question itself became obsoletethe colonial issue was supervened and displaced by the other ques~ tion, namely the fact that a foreign country was unlawfully clinging to territory which belonged to the Indian people. 183. I do not need here to go intc the historic, political, geographic and other reasons which make Goa and these other territories an inalienable part of India. Except for the Portuguese and some of their die-hard supporters, there are not many people in the world today who would deny to India its indisputable right to these territories. It is not a question of Portuguese sovereignty being extinguished to give place to Indian sovereignty. It is simply a question of th + liberation of the national territory of India held over by the Portuguese in complete indifference to the historic facts which led to the emergence and growthofa free India. 134. One can never regard that a country dismembered or severed because two or more different colonial Power held portions of it by force loses its entity; the ter. itorial integrity of a country is essential and indivisible. The Indian Union could not have been complete and self-consistent until it finally and irrevocably contained all the territories on the subcontinent which are held by colonial Powers, despite the establishment of a State in which full sovereignty over all India inevitably and ineluctably rests. Nationality is a unifying process. Self-determination is not disintegration. Only the colonial Powers have interest in breaking nations down, creating and perpetuating enclaves and building up States like Katanga out of the struggling unity of new nations. 135. A great deal has been made by the Portuguese representative about the action taken by the Indian Government. Appeals have been made to moral and spiritual values and to the fact that India has used tuguese arraignment against India should bear in mind aS a very relevant and material element the fact that Portugal has not felt the least compunction about the use of very brutal force against the national movement of Angolan peoples. 136. The use of force has not so far been abjured by any nation represented here. Indeed, many nations in this Council maintain today vast armies and great inventories of weapons as testimony to the fact that force is a distinct and accepted element of international life. India has undoubtedly used force in this case—minimum force as the representative of India described it-the same necessary force which the United Nations is using in Katanga to the discomfiture of the colonial Powers. The force has been used after fourteen years of patient waiting ‘in the hope that Portugal would see reason and accept reality, 187, The representative of the United States who spoke here today made a fervent and appealing statement about the use of force by India. We were moved by his statement, but we are not quite sure of its relevance. He claimed that the Portuguese have been in occupation for over 400 years. This occupation was unjust when it began, as everyone acknowledges now, and the longer it lasted the greater, therefore, the injustice perpetrated. If Portugal conquered Goa, then the people of Goa have the right of rebellion. The right of conquest carries with it the right of rebellion by the conquered. 138. The action taken by India is not action taken against another State for territorial aggrandizement, such as was envisaged in the Charter. It is not an invasion of a Portuguese population, for neither the land nor the people of Goa is Portuguese by any stretch of the imagination. India's action is to liberate Ind.an national territory. 139. The Portuguese build-up of Portuguese forces in Goa cannot be reccnciled with peaceful intentions towards India. The Security Council cannot but also note that such a build-up was inconsistent with the desire to seek settlement of the issue on peaceful lines. The public statements of Mr. Salazar, the President cf Portugal, that he would adopt a scorched earth policy—a policy which I understand is already being put into effect in Goa—reveals an inherent fanaticism and intransigence that is not consistent with Article 33 of the Charter, which enjoins parties to any dispute to seek solution by various peaceful means, ai.¢ not by recourse to scorched earth policies. 140. India is a countr: dedicated to peace. It has shown this by the fact that India is not a member of any military alliance. Portugal, however, isa member of a military alliance, 142. We have heard here some caustic remarks on what sounds like a dethronement of Mr. Nehru, the Prime Minister of India. For my own part, I cannot accept this dethronement, least of all at the hands of a colonial empire. Mr. Nehru has never pretended to be a pacifist disciple of Gandhi. His greatness Hes in his ability to cross-breed the spirit of Gandhi's teach= ings with the practical responsibilities of a Head of State. The redemption of Goa is not the antithesis of Mr. Nehru; it is the fulfilment of his lifelong struggle against colonial occupation, from the days of his struggle in the Congress to his days in gaol and the final liberation of India. His march into Goa is part of that process and if his latest step is more like the act of a policeman than a saint, the fault is not his, but of those who, while preaching saintliness to Nehru, reserve the right to worship Machiavelli. 143. The delegations of the United States and the United Kingdom have asked for a cease~fire. There can be no cease-fire in this case as a cease~fire can only be applicable as between belligerents. There is not state of belligerency here. We do not see, there~ fore, how a cease-fire can be called by this Council. 144. To the representative of the United States I should like to say, in conclusion, that the least the friends of Portugal can do to help inthe present situa~ tion is to ask the Portuguese to change their attitude— indeed to warn them that the world will not be patient any longer in the face of their intransigence and obscurantism. Instead of asking for a cease-fire, they should first obtain from Portugal an unequivocal deelaration that Portugal is prepared to give freedom immediately to these enclaves which they now hold by force. 145. There is a necessary correlation of forces in the world; things tie up, and the attitudes of nations in one region are consistent with their attitudes in other regions. There is a basic identity of views between colonial Powers, and their views and attitudes cohere in a natural and inescapable pattern. We are not, therefore, surprised that one group of Powers are today demanding a cease-fire in Goa and that the same group are demanding a cease fire in Katanga. It would appear that when a military action undertaken for a legitimate purpose seems to have a chance of success, a cease-fire is called for in the name of international morality and a whole host of generous principles. But these same Powers see no inconsistency between this attitude and the attitude of mind which creates a military alliance, increases armaments, weapons, and stockpiles of mass destruction. On 8 November 1961 the representative of Portugal, in the Fourth Committee, 2/ spoke of the atrocities of Angolan people against the Portuguese in Angola, &/ Ibid., Sixteenth Session, Fourth Committee, 1202nd meeting, 147. My country cannot call on India to negotiate because India has all this while offered nothing but negotiations. Nor can Ceylon call upon India to withdraw from Goa because that would be to ask it to withdraw from its own territory. We cannot censure India for invading its own land because that would be a contradiction in terms. 148, My delegation, therefore, would be compelled to vote against any draft resolution which embodied these three concepts, 149. We heard with great interest the representative of the Soviet Union call upon this Council to consider the need of a new periodical formulation by which this Council would encourage the acceleration of decolonization in order to remove a major cause of war in the present day, The representative of the United States, on the other hand, talked of organizing the United Nations for peace. We should like to ask these two great statesmen who, in the past, have so successfully carried on negotiations on different matters to put their heads together again and give us this new formulation which both seem to consider this Council needs.

There are no more speakers on my list. I should like to know when the Council wishes to hold its next meeting.

In view of the urgent character of the situation, we would suggest that the Council might proceed with its consideration of the matter this evening.

We have the difficulty of not being able to get into communication with our Government very easily. We have to do this by cable and other rather complicated methods of communication, and therefore we shall not be in a position to get instructions from our Government immediately, unlike other more fortunate delegations. We have already asked our Government for instructions, so we should be very grateful iftime be allowed to us, at least forty-eight hours, for these instructions to reach us. We understand the urgency of the problem, and if forty-eight hours is too much, then we ask for twenty-four hours, because we cannot get instructions fror our Government in less time andinan important issue like this we cannot take positions on our own responsibility. 153. Mr. BARNES (Liberia}: My delegation has a difficulty similar to that of the representative of 154, Mr. YOST (United States of America): I understand the difficulties of certain delegations that do not have instructions. But nevertheless there is fight~- ing going on, there is a serious situation, and we do urge that the Council continue its deliberations this evening. We would hope that some action might be taken this evening, but in any case we believe that there are others who wish to speak and proposals that may be submitted to the Council which would be of assistance in advancing this matter even if everyone does not have final instructions. Therefore we very much hope that we can resume this evening at least for some time.

The Council has two proposals before it: a proposal by the United States representative that the Council should meet this evening and another by the representative of Liberia that it should meet tomorrow at 10,30 a.m, 156. Mr, BERARD (France) (translated from French): I told the representative of the Secretariat that [ would not speak before dinner because [ thought I should be able to do so after dinner—or so [ had been given to understand, This is one reason why I agree with our United States colleague. I also think the Council would suffer a serious loss of prestige if, insuch grave cir~ cumstances, it were to wait twenty~four hours before taking a decision.

I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but the comments which have just been made by the representatives of Ceylon, Liberia, the United States and France impel me to saya few words, 158. If the representatives of the two African-Asian countries insist on having time to receive instructions from their Governments, I think those are serious grounds for adjourning our meeting until tomorrow morning. That would be less than twenty-four hours, and I feel that we should meet the wishes of those delegations. 159, With regard to the views put forward by the representatives of the United States and France, i must point out that hostilities have been taking place in various territories for a number of years, that hostilities have been going on for several months in the territory of Angola, and that those representatives who have just commented on the subject were in no hurry to take action, This applies also to the hostilities in the territory of Tunisia—there was no great haste to settle the question in that case. ThereforeI suggest that a postponement until tomorrow morning is a minimum requirement for taking a considered decision on the matter before us. I entirely support the proposal made by the representatives of Ceylon and Liberia, and my delegation will vote for an adjournment until tomorrow morning.

I should like to say only one more word in emphasizing the point which the representative of France has just

I call for a vote on the proposal of the United States representative that the Security Council should hold a meeting this evening. A vote was taken by a show of hands. In favour: Chile, China, Ecuador, France, Turkey, United Kingdom cf Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: Ceylon, Liberia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The United Arab Republic did not participate in the voting, . The proposal was adopted by 7 votes fo 3. 162, The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I suggest therefore that we should meet at 8.45 p.m. If there are no objections I shall consider my suggestion adopted. It was so decided, The meeting rose at 7.25 p.m. BELGIUM/BELGIQUE: ET MESSAGERIES DE 14-22, rue du Persil, Bruxelles. CZECROSLOVAKIA/TCHECOSLOVAQUIE: CESKOSLOVENSKY SPISOVATEL N&drodni Tfida 9, Praha DENMARK/DANEMARK: EJNAR MUNKSGAARD, Ngrregade 6, Kébenhavn, FINLAND/FINLANDE: AKATEEMINEN KIRJAKAUPPA 2 Keskuskatu, Helsinki. FRANCE: EDITIONS 13, rue Soufflot, Paris AFRICA/AFRIQUE CAMEROUN: LIBRAIRIE DU PEUPLE AFRICAIN La Gérante, B. P. 1197, Yaoundé. ETHIOPIA/ETHIOPIE: INTERNATIONAL PRESS AGENCY, P. 0. Box 120, Addis Ababa. GHANA: UNIVERSITY BOOKSHOP University College of Ghana, Legon, Accra. MOROCCO/MAROC: CENTRE DE DIFFUSION DOCUMENTAIRE DU. B.E.P.1., 8, rue Michaux-Bellaire, Rabat. SOUTH AFRICA/AFRIQUE DU SUD: VAN SCHAIK'S BOOK STORE (PTY.), LTD. Church Street, Box 724, Pretoria. GERMANY (FEDERAL ALLEMAGNE (REPUBLIQUE R. EISENSCHMIDT Schwanthaler Str, 59, ELWERT UND MEURER Hauptstrasse 101, Serlin-Schéneberg. ALEXANDER HORN Spiegelgasse 9, Wiesbaden. W. E, SAARBACH Gertrudenstrasse 30, GREECE/GRECE: LIBRAIRIE KAUFFMANN 28, rue du Stade, Athaénes. UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC/ REPUBLIQUE ARABE UNIE: . LIBRAIRIE “LA RENAISSANCE D’EGYPTE” 9 Sh. Adly Pasha, Cairo. ASIA/ASIE BURMA/BIRMANIE: CURATOR, GOVT. BOOK DEPOT, Rangoon, CAMBODIA/CAMBODGE: ENTREPRISE KHMERE DE LIBRAIRIE Imprimerie & Papeterie, S. aR. L., Phnom-Penh. CEYLON/CEYLAN: LAKE HOUSE BOOKSHOP Assoc. Newspapers of Ceylon, P, O. Box 244, Colombo, ICELAND/ISLANDE: BOKAVERZLUN SIGFUSAR EYMUNDSSONAR H, Austurstraeti 18, Reykjavik. tRELAND/IRLANDE: Oublin, ITALY/ITALIE: LIBRERIA COMMISSIONARIA Via Gino Capponi 26, & Via D, A, Azuni 15/A, LUXEMBOURG: LIBRAIRIE SCHUMMER Place du Théatre, Luxembourg. NETHERLANDS/PAYS-BAS: N. V. MARTINUS NIJHOFF Lange Voorhout 9, 's-Gravenhage. NORWAY/NORVEGE: JOHAN GRUNDT TANUM Kart Johansgate, 41, Oslo. PORTUGAL: LIVRARIA 186 Rua Aurea, Lisboa. SPAIN/ESPAGNE: LIBRERIA BOSCH 11 Ronda Universidad, LIBRERIA MUNDI-PRENSA Castellé 37, Madrid. SWEDEN/SUEDE: C. KUNGL. HOVBOKHANDEL Fredsgatan 2, Stockholm. SWITZERLAND/SUISSE: LIBRAIRIE PAYOT, S. Lausanne, Genéve. HANS RAUNHARDT Kirchgasse 17, Ziirich TURKEY/TURQUIE: LIBRAIRIE HACHETTE 469 Istikia!l Caddesi, Beyoglu, CHINA/CHINE: THE WORLD BOOK COMPANY, LTO. 99 Chung King Road, 1st Section, Taipeh, Taiwan. THE COMMERCIAL PRESS, LTD. 211 Honan Road, Shanghai. HONG KONG/HONG-KONG: THE SWINDON BOOK COMPANY 25 Nathan Road, Kowloon, INDIA/INDE: ORIENT LONGMANS Bombay, Calcutta, Hyderabad, Madras & New Delhi. OXFORD BOOK & STATIONERY COMPANY Calcutta & New Delhi. P. VARADACHARY & COMPANY Madras, INDONESIA/INDONESIE: PEMBANGUNAN, LTD. Gunung Sahari 84, Djakarta. JAPAN/JAPON: MARUZEN COMPANY, LTD. 6 Tori-Nichome, Nihonbasni, Tokyo. KOREA (REP. OF)/COREE (REP. DE): EUL-YOO PUBLISHING CO., LTD. 5, 2-KA, Chongno, Seoul. PAKISTAN: THE PAKISTAN CO-OPERATIVE BOOK SOCIETY Dacca, East Pakistan. PUBLISHERS UNITED, LTD. Lahore. THOMAS & THOMAS Karacht. UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST UNION DES REPUBLIQUES SOVIETIQUES: MEZHDUNARODNAYA KNYIGA, Smoienskaya PHILIPPINES: ALEMAR’S BOOK STORE 769 Rizal Avenue, Manila. SINGAPORE/SINGAPOUR: THE CITY BOOK STORE, LTD., Collyer Quay. UNITED KiINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNI: H. M. STATIONERY OFFICE P, O. Box 569, London, (and HMSO branches Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, YUGOSLAVIA/YOUGOSLAVIE: CANKARJEVA ZALOZBA Ljubljana, Slovenia. DRZAVNO PREDUZECE Jugoslovenska Knijiga, Beograd. PROSVJETA 5, Trg Bratstva i Jedinstva, PROSVETA PUBLISHING Import-Export Division, Terazije 16/1, Beograd. THAILAND/THAILANDE: PRAMUAN MIT, LTD. 55 Chakrawat Road, Wat Tuk, Bangkok. VIET-NAM (REP. OF/REP. DU): LIBRAIRIE-PAPETERIE XUAN THU 185, rue Tu-do, B. P. 283, Saigon. EUROPE AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE: GEROLD & COMPANY Graben 31, Wien, 1. B. WULLERSTORFF Markus Sittikusstrasse 10, Salzburg. Orders and inquiries from countries where sales agencies have not yet been or to Sales Section, United Nations, Palais Les commaridcs et demandes de renseignements émanant de pays oi! i] n’existe ONU, New York (E.-U.), ou ala Section des ventes, witho in UN. Price; $US, 0,50 (or equivalent