S/PV.988 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken by the Council at its last meeting, I invite the representatives of Portugal and India to take places 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.

At the request of the Portuguese Government the Security Council has today been hastily convened to consider the serious situation resulting from the action taken by armed forces of the Indian Union in the last forty-eight hours against the Portuguese Territories of Goa, Damo and Diu. 3. My Government learned of these events with astonishment, regret and shock. We regret them because they involve hostilities between two countries with which my country has the most friendly relations; we are shocked because we are witnessing a specifically military attack. In view of the obvious disproportion of the forces concerned, can anyone really assert that the Indian Union was threatened or provoked? The weak but courageous resistance put up by the Portuguese garrisons proves that these territories, in which Portugal has been established for seven centuries and where peoples of widely differing religions and races live in peace, were really defenceless. It is surprising that the Indian Union should have thought it necessary to use such large forces and to resort to bombardment, which unfortunately did not spare the civilian population. 5. We are not only shocked, but astonished to learn that this action has been taken by a great Asian country which has always posed as a champion of the principles of the Charter and whose declared policy is based on the principle of non-violence, of which Gandhi was not only a distinguished advocate but an apostle and even a martyr. 6. The representative of Ind>.. ha: said that this is a colonial question. He has ew, tried to tell us that the law of nations proclaimed by the great jurists and applied by the Court at The Hague is contaminated by the atmosphere of colonialism. Some suggestions we have heard today, if they were taken up, would involve a real negation of law. Are such arguments really enough to warrant setting aside the decision of The Hague Court recognizing that these Territories are Portuguese? Can these arguments in any way justify the attack which has been committed? 7. Do these events, as some maintain, mark the end of a period in the history of independent India, the period of conciliation and the avoidance of resort to force? Must we set them beside the speeches we have heard so often in this halleand often in such abundance—from the best qualified official representatives of the Indian Union? Must we conclude that this country is ready to follow the principles it proclaims when they are to its advantage and determined not to do so when they are to its disadvantage? We shall not insult India and its great statesmen for a moment by believing this. 8. France considers that we must distinguish between the solution of the substance of the problem and the situation brought about by the use of military means by the Indian Union in order to settle its dispute with Portugal unilaterally. France has constantly maintained that all disputes between States should be settled by peaceful means, and the problem of substance is not now within our jurisdiction. 9. We believe that a mistake—and I venture to say a grave mistake~hasbeen committed by the Indian authorities. This mistake must be corrected. A military action contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter and condemned by the Charter must be ended immediately, and a situation in which peaceful contacts can be resumed must be restored. We have no doubt that India will respond to our appeal.

In this debate it seems to be generally agreed that force as a means of solving international problems should be condemned. My delegation, which represents a traditionally peaceful State, is glad that it is acknowledged that force is an unlawful means of it. 12. We must note, however, that certain arguments put forward in the debate seem to suggest that there is a lawful and an unlawful use of force. We do not accept the lawfulness of force unless it is used according to the Charter, either by the United Nations or with the authorization of the Security Council by some regional body in accordance with the Charter. 18, We should like to examine these arguments. The representative of India maintained that there is no aggression against Portuguese territory, because the enclaves against which military action has been taken belong to India. This view was developed in greater detail by the representative of Ceylon, who suggested that this was, so to speak, a reassertion of the right of ownership. On the other hand, it was argued that this is a dispute about colonial territories. The representative of Liberia pointed o::t that, since there is a General Assembly resolution [1542 (XV)] declar~ ing Goa to be a Non-Self-Governing Territory, Portu~ gal does not exercise sovereignty over the territory. 14. We do not wish to go into the substance of the problem. If we were concerned with a consideration of that kind, we should argue, as we have done for so long, inat Non-Self-Governing Territories—the Char~ ter does not refer to colonies other than those which belonged to the defeated Fowers—belong not to the Administering Power but to the peoples administered, who should be free to exercise the right of self determination in deciding whether to join another State or to set themselves up as an independent State. But we do not believe that the present problem has been raised in these terms. It is not suggested that this is a case of consulting the peoples but that action gas been taken on the assumption that these peoples territories belong to one of the States involved, either Portugal or India. 15. Thus I believe we have two problems: an immediate problem and a long term problem. The immediate problem is how to end the military opera~ ‘ions so that--and this is where the long term probem arises—negotiations between the parties can then » resumed, \6. We shall support the suggestion of the United tates of America to this effect, requesting India to ‘ease its military operations as further evidence of ts peace-loving tradition and its devotion to the winciples of the Charter. But we should also like to he peoples whose territories are in dispute may be | wnow that Portugal is willing to meet its international ibligations by complying with the resolutions of the Inited Nations and to take steps so that the fate of

My Government and people have long been aware of the acute differences between India and Portugal in regard to Goa, Damo and Diu. Without discussing at this moment the colonial background of these Portuguese Territories on the subcontinent of India, useless relics of the past, let me say at the very outset of my statement that we in China are not unsympathetic to the aspirations of India. Under the circumstances no Asian State, indeed no Member State, can be entirely unsympathetic to India. Nevertheless, we deplore the use of force by India against Portugal which is a shock to my delegation. 18. During recent days, as we read the letters addressed to the President of the Security Council by both the Portuguese representative and the Indian representative, my delegation clung to the hope that peace might be maintained. We based our hope on two grounds. In the first place, we believed that India was dedicated to the philosophy of non-violence preached so eloquently and passionately by the great man of India, Gandhi; In more recent years Indian leaders have strongly spoken, both inside and outside the United Nations, for peace and disarmament and for upholding the ideals of the United Nations. In the second place, we continued to hope, because it seemed to my delegation that the material interests involved in Goa, Damao and Diu were not of such magnitude as to tempt the statesmen in either India or Portugal to go to war for them. In balancing the material interests involved against the principles involved, we thought that India certainly would choose devotion to principles. 19. India has chosen otherwise. It has chosen to use force to achieve its aims. Such use of force is obviously a violation of the Charter which, inthis respect, is absolute and allows no exceptions, 20. The representative of India spoke about Portugal's provocations. I must confess that the plea of provocation is not impressive and could not justify the Indian armed invasion of Goa, Dam#o and Diu. 21. There has been much talk in this Council about the evils of colonialism. Colonialism is an evil but war is even a greater evil. Every warmaker has declared his particular war just, righteous or even holy. We of this generation cught to be sophisticated enough to know that it is not so. 22. My delegation would like to see the fight in Goa stopped, the Indian armed forces withdrawn to the positions they held before the hostilities and negotiations started between the two parties directly involved for the peaceful solution of their differences. We make this plea not only for the sake of the two countries directly involved, but also for the sake of the future of the United Nations itself.

My delegation's view on the lamentable 24. The United Nations was established precisely in order that the rule of law should prevail over the individual will of any State. If we were to ignore the Charter and the obligations set forth therein, and if each nation considered itself authorized to act as it saw fit, we should be undermining the authority of the United Nations and providing excuses, especially ror the large States, to intervene in the destinies of the world in disregard of the principles and agreements of the international community. 25. We are forced to express our concern and surprise at the news that Indian armed forces have crossed the frontiers of Goa, On reading the news, we weighed the events carefully and tried to get to the roots of them, but our chief concern was to proceed according to the Charter of the United Nations. 26. Article 1, paragraph i, of the Charter, Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 and Chapter Vi on the pacific settlement of disputes provide that Members of the Organization should settle all disagreements by peaceful means. The Security Council has a duty to call upon the parties to settle their disputes by inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration or other peaceful means of their own choice. Under Article 35, any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly. In the case now before us, neither India nor Portugal has taken the dispute to the Security Council in accordance with Article 35. If they had done so, our Organization, in accordance with Article 36, could have recommended more appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment of this dispute—for instance by referring the parties to the International Court of Justice. 27. Chapter VII of the Charter provides for adequate measures which could be taken and do not imply the use of force. The Charter contains clear and cate~ gorical provisions which oblige Member States not to take unilateral decisions which may endanger international peace and security, and to avoid settling their disputes by means which are not peaceful. Thus, in the present conflict which has arisen between India and Portugal because of the occupation of Goa and two other enclaves, the problem can only be con= sidered in the light of the provisions of the Charter. While each of the Powers involved in the conflict deserves our sympathy, the delegation of Chile is forced to deplore the use of force by India in Goa, Damiio and Diu. We sincerely hope that the hostilities which have broken out will end immediately. Yet we must deal very frankly with other aspects of the problem. 29. The use of force is not lawful, even in defence of the lawfulness of a given case. Otherwise countries would disregard the United Nations and act according to their own judgement, and the world would no longer have any decisive way of settling disputes except the use of force. My delegation's views on this problem are very clear, On the one hand, we call upon all Member States to fulfil the obligations of the Charter. On the other hand, we believe the United Nations should accelerats the peaceful and legal process of eradicating colonialisiui. 30, In the present case, we think the parties to the dispute should take into consideration the wishes of the inhabitants of Goa, Damfo and Diu. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Portuguese possessions in India are historical vestiges of a colonial past, but neither the legal fiction which has been mentioned here nor annexation through the use of violence can resolve a problem which has lasted for centuries. Neither historical possession nor violent possession should prevail, but the freely expressed wishes of the inhabitants of the disputed territories. If India were to take possession tomorrow of the territories it claims teday, it could have no satisfaction, because it would not have integrated them into its own territory by honourable and lawful means, although we might all acknowledge the justice of its cause. It is also obvious that Portugal, as a law-abiding Member of the United Nations, should comply with the various decisions of the General Assembly and transmit information on these territories, which the United Nations considers to be non~self-governing. 31, In view of the urgency of the case before the Council, my delegation thinks we should: firstly, call for a cease-fire; secondly, take into consideration the wishes of the inhabitants of the disputed territories; and thirdly, call upon the parties to enter into dignified and honourable negotiations in order to reach a settlement that will not jeopardize international peace and security or the legal structure of our Organization, 32, We wish to express our faith and confidence in India, which is acknowledged to be a peace-loving arid conciliatory country with a distinguished record in the United Nations. At the same time, we wish to express our faith and confidence in Portugal, towhich we are bound by so many historical ties of friendship and understanding, May both countries, renouncing 38, In a frightened world such as ours, both Powers will certainly wish to set an example of concord and conciliation. The aggravation of a dispute which fills us with such anxiety would start yet another conflagration in a world which looks to the United Nations, and particularly this Security Council, for a caim and impartial decision embodying an urgent and peremp-— tory appeal to both parties to work out a peaceful settlement of a dispute which, we are sure, must be overcome if both adhere strictly te the principles of the Charter. For this reason, »e welcome the action already taken by our Secretary-General and hope he wiil carry it forward with energy and zeal. 34, Mr, GARIN (Portugai): I regret very much having to speak again, for this is not the time for speeches. However, I feel compelled to rectify some of the serious mis-statements heard in the course of this dehate, I consider that indispensable in order to keep the record straight, 35. Two issues which are clear except to those who refuse to see have heen given erroneous interpretetions by some speakers who have taken part in this discussion, The first confusion arises in treating the Indian Union as if it were the whole of the Indian subcontinent, entitled to absorb neighbouring territories belonging to other and even pre-existing sovereign~ ties. The second confusion is to think tha. aggression can be justified as a praiseworthy effort to end what is described ag colonialism, even though, in the case under discussion, there is not the slightest trace of colonialism, as I shall demonstrate presently. These are the two issues on which confusion hasbeen established. I shall discuss them one by one. 36, Is the Indian Union the same thing ae. the Indian subcontinent? Certainly not, as even « schoolboy knows. The Portuguese State of India came into being in the sixteenth century. At that time there were no less than thirteen independent kingdoms in the Indian subcontinent, and at least eleven of them under Mohammedan rule. Over three centuries later the British Empire came into being, consisting of British India and the Indian principalities, Briti.h India came to an end in 1947 with the formation of two distinct sovereignties, each with a well defined territory. Thus the Indian subcontinent, which was never politi~ cally one at any time in history, saw the birth of two new nations while the other sovereignties continued to exist in their own right as they had existed before. 37, In this context, Indian attempts to annex the territories of the other sovereignties in the neighbourhood cannot find any legal justification. Such attempts couli - legitimized only by the other sovereignties éonc . ved, if they agreed tc a formal transfer of their territories, but only if the transfer couid be voluntary, never compulsory, much less by means 38, It has been said here that international law in its present form was made by Europeans. I submit that, so long as it is not replaced, it must be accepted and followed by civilized nations, and I am not aware that international law relating to sovereignty has been changed so far, 39, The Indian Union may not argue that it has any rights over the territories of neighbouring pre-existing sovereignties. If the principle of sovereignty is not respected, then there is no knowing what conflicts may arise in every part of the world, when a nation decides to seize the territory of another nation under some pretext or another, In the present caseall kinds of pretexts have been cited. None of those pretexts justify the annexation of the Portuguese territories in India by the Indian Union, Two important points have, however, not been mentioned: first, that Goans have lived a life of complete political integration in the Portuguese nation for 450 years; second, that the Indian Prime Minister has himself admitted that Goans have a different culture. 40, Race has been invoked as an argument, but, if this argument is valid, the Indian Union should first grant separate nationality to the Dravidians, to the aborigines of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and of course to the Nagas, who are demanding it at the cost of their blood, Religion has also been invoked, even though the Indian Union boasts of having a secular State and, what is more, when it is precisely Indian propaganda that has been accusing Portugal of mixing religion and polities, which Portugal does not do. 41, After dealing with these pseudo-arguments, what is left to justify the Indian claim to annex Goa? Geo~ graphy? But geography has never justified political boundaries, as the map of the world clearly shows, It is not geography but history that makes nations, and history has made Goa a part of Portugal. Those who could perhaps have claimed it as a part of their nation died four centuries ago, The present Indian Union is not their successor, The Indian Union is only a part successor to the former British India, not to the whole Indian subcontinent; but, as a part successor to the former British India, the Indian Union has inherited not only part of the territory of British India but also the obligations of British India, One of these obligations, which the British never betrayed, is respect for the sovereignty and the integrity of the Portuguese State of India. 42, I now come to the second confusion. The Indian Union, following well-known tactics, has been trying 43. From the economic point of view, neither the metropolitan people nor the metropolitan capital exploit Goa; nor do they enjoy any special privileges. In trade, the metropolitan share in Goan imports and exports has, on account of distance, been modest. Juridically there is no distinction between the Portuguese of Goa and the Portuguese of the European tinent, the Portuguese islands and the rest of the overseas provinces, The Goans enjoy all rights, have access to all posts, carry out all functions and earn their living throughout the Portuguese territory. Politically as well as legally, Goa is an integral part of the Portuguese nation. As a province it enjoys administrative and financial autonomy, The Goans take part in the formation and working of the central organs of sovereignty on a basis of equaltty with all the other Portuguese nationals. 44, This is the situation and it is indeed a remark~- able one in view of the form which usually characterizes colonial expansion in the world and of the utilitarian and materialistic ideas which in many places dominate political action, The territories of Goa, Damigo and Diu have traditionally and invariably been lmown as the Portuguese State of India, As full citizens of Portugal, Goans have traditionally and invariably had access to the highest posts in all parts of the nation. Thus, they have been Ministers of the Central Cabinet in Lisbon, supreme court judges, governors of provinces, university professors, diplomats, admirals, generals, holders of Portuguese titles of nobility, and so on, Since the parliamentary system was started in the Portuguese nation in 1822, Goans have invariably sent their representatives and worked actively in the political life not only of their own homeland but also of the nation as a whole, no less than in all the other nation-building activities. On the other hand, European Portugal far from deriving any material benefit from Portuguese {india has often had to aid the latter financially and materially and until very recently had to supplement the budget of Portuguese india regularly every year, Nor ean it be said that European Portugal has any strategic interest in Portuguese India. 45, Thus, no matter from what angle Portuguese India is considered, it cannot be labeiled as a colony and is to be treated as a province of Portugal in keeping with the centuries-old tradition which finds its expression in the Portuguese constitution, There is, therefore, no colonialism in Goa because politically as well as legally Goa is an overseas province and is an integral part of the Portuguese nation as much as East Pakistan is an integral part of Pakistdin. But above all, there is no colonialism in Goa because there has been an association for 456 years cemented always by the total absence of racial discrimination and the constant policy of tolerance and 46. This brings me to another point. The Indian representative also referred to the so-called peaceful methods his Government pursued to secure the annexation of Goa. This is certainly a mest surprising statement, to say the least. It would take hours to detail such methods before the Council, but I shall spare the Council. Suffice it to say that those peaceful methods were characterized by violence, oppression, violation of human rights, suppression of individual freedom and so on, 47. I shall just give a few examples, An economic land blockade was strictly enforced, thereby trying to impose untold hardships on the population, Mail and railway services were cut off, Inflammatory political propaganda, based on distortion of facts, was carried out with utter disregard for the truth, Piracy was organized against Portuguese fishing men who were fishing within Portuguese territorial waters, The Portuguese community in Bombay was persecuted, their newspapers suppressed, their associations closed, and thousands were thrown out of theiy modest jobs merely because they had been faithful to their country, The Portuguese enclaves of Dadra and Nagar-Aveli were attacked and occupied by armed gangs organized in the Indian Union and supported by the Indian army and police. Those enclaves were recently unilaterally annexed by the Indian Union in total disregard of a decision of the International Court of Justice, With the open complicity of the Indian authorities, invasions of Portuguese territory were attempted by thousands of people—Indians, not Goans~-paid at five rupees per head. Acts of terrorism and sabatoge were systematically organized in the Indian Union; for a time, explosives were set by bandits who kept crossing our borders, killing innocent people, and who had been trained in a school of terrorism which was set up for that purpose near our borders with the full knowledge, if not the backing, of the Indian authorities. Peaceful methods, indeed, 48, The Council is now seized with the last peaceful method: a clear~cut, cold-blooded and premeditated act of unprovoked aggression perpetrated against peaceful populations which for more than 450 years, and despite all recent Indian pressure, aggressive acts and provocation, have been living in love of the flag of Portugal, 49, The Indian representative h=s said that there were no fewer than twenty revculis in Goa, including one of Catholic priests. It is no excuse that the Indian representative derives his knewledge of Goa from Indian propaganda—which is always false—and not from history. What are called revolts in Goan history 50. The Indian representative also talked about Goans wanting and supporting the Indian invasion of Goa and he felt no qualms of conscience in including 200,000 Goan emigrants who have been living in the present Indian territory since the days of the British, To crown his inexactitudes he mentioned 1,000 Goan Satyagrahis who, according to him, crossed into Goa in 1954, The Indian representative has got his facts from propaganda again, and even then he got them wrong, 51, In 1954, in spite of Indian propaganda, of the 10,000 Goan Satyagrahis who crossed into Goa, not even fifty could be found to perform the comedy, as foreign journalists reported at the time, It was in 1955 that thousands of so-called Satyagrahis crossed into Goa—~5,000 to be exact, But they were all Indians; not one was Goan, 52. It is in inexactitudes such as this that the Indian Union seeks to justify its annexation of Goa, But the truth which it conceals is that even of the 100,000 Goan emigrants living in the Indian Union, not more than a few hundred could be pressurized to join the anti-Portuguese movement; and of these, most were Indian citizens. The vast majority of Goan emigrants reclaimed their Portuguese nationality. 53, How gross are the inexactitudes of the Indian representative may be seen in his mention of foreign Satyagrahis supposed to have been killed by the Portuguese, He may refresh his memory by reading the newspapers of his own country which, with all their false propaganda against the Portuguese, did not dare tc place the figure at more than twentythree, 54, The Indian representative has certainly excelled in propaganda, But we understand, A crime such as unprovoked armed aggression needs very gross inexactitudes to be explained away. 55. There have been references today to the powerful build-up of armed forces in Goa. The Government of Portugal categorically denies having massed troops and military aircraft in its territories of Goa, Danio and Diu. Allegations of a build-up or of reinforcements are also inexact, the truth being that there are now fewer troops in Goa than there were two years ago. The figure of 12,000 troops mentioned by the representative of India is a figment of his imagination. Foreign journalists who have been personally to both sides of the border have clearly reported that the Portuguese forces are substantiaHy outnumbered by the invading Indian army. Indian allegations regarding military aircraft and naval units have likewise been denied by foreign journalists on the spot, and it is hardly necessary te add any ing to their reports. il 57, Annexation of Goa has always been described by the Indian leaders as part of the unfinished business of the people of the Indian Union. As long ago as 6 September 1955, in a policy statement made in Parliament in New Delhi, the Indian Prime Minister stated categorically that the Indian Union was "not prepared to tolerate the presence of the Portuguese in Goa even if the Goans wanted them there", The Indian Government has tried today to implement this policy by initiating its brutal and cowardly aggression against Goa. 58. Yet this Council has been told by the Indian representative that this shameless aggression is liberation, and the Indian representative has also brazenly affirmed that it will be so—"Charter or no Charter, Council or no Council", 59. There is probably no other example in the his~ tory of the world of such an impudent attitude on the part of a big country which has perpetrated a das-~ tardly crime involving brutal violence against a peaceful and virtually defenceless population in order to distract attention from the difficulties experienced with another big country which the Indian Union fears, By this cowardly action against Goa, the Indian lead~ ers have not only openly flouted and hetrayed their own preaching, but also have challenged the Charter of the United Nations and the conscience of the civilized world. 60. The crux of the question before this Council is nothing less than the all important consideration of saving human lives exposed to the conquests of a brutal aggression, I have, therefore, to plead with the members of the Council not to leave this chamber tonight without taking the much needed decision which will prevent further bloodshed. The Council has a great responsibility in this matter. I appeal to members not to put off this responsibility. I make this appeal on behalf of the Goan people who are now 62, The representative of Portugal, with whom I should like to deal first, has said many things and of course what he has said about Goa is not really strange to us. He said the same thing about Angola when that matter was before the Security Council in March and June 1961, He drew the most rosy picture of Angola, of the integration, of the perfect harmany among races, of the great freedom that the Angolan people were enjoying, the complete equality that they were subjected to,

Point of order.

I give the floor to the representative of Portugal on a point of order, 65, Mr. GARIN (Portugal): Mr. President, could you tell me if Angola is under discussion in this meeting of the Security Council or if we are discussing the armed aggression of India against Goa? 66, The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I think it would be better to let the representative of India continue his statement. 67, Mr. JHA (India): I would agree with the representative of Portugal that Angola is not onthe agenda, but I am entitled to draw a parallel. I have got to expose here the entire monstrous Portuguese colonial~ ism that is prevailing in the world today. I would be failing in my duty if I did not draw parallels, whether the Portuguese representative likes it or not. 68. What Iwas going to say was that he drew a same rosy picture as to what was happening in Angola. What is happening in Angola today? I suppose he wili again raise a point of order; therefore, let the Africans sitting here and the African members of the Council and others contemplate what is happening there. I would leave it at that. 69, That is the sort of integration heis talking abo that is the sort of freedom that exists in Portugues. colonies, and that is the freedom he talks of for the people of Goa, He tries to convince us that they are living in a paradise, that they have become members of the Supreme Court, ambassadors here and there, and so on. But not two dozen ambassadors, not two dozen supreme court judges are equal to the freedom and the passionate yearning for freedom which has been consecrated in General Assembly resclution 1514 (XV), which freedom belongs to each and every 71, It would take me a iong time to answer the representative of Portugal. He has, as I said, tried to paint a rosy picture most of which were exaggerations, if not lies, To paraphrase Mark Twain, "if lies were lilies the representative of Portugal would be a landscape", I want to leave it at that. 72, The representative of Portugal has cited reports of foreign journalists. I have great regard for the profession of journalism, I think we all owe the Press a great debt of gratitude, certainly all of us who are in the United Nations, for the great work that they do for the dissemination of what happens in this organization, and for the educative influence that they have in the world, But I caunot take everything that comes from foreign journalists without a pinch of salt. We are having a lot of experience about that from the Congo and from elsewhere. I would again leave that matter at that, We are not going to be over impressed by what comes from some foreign journalists who go to Goa. We have always had that difficulty, We had it in 1054, we had it in 1955, we had had it on every occasion on which we had troubles, There have been quite a number of foreign journalists whose reports, [ am sorry to say, have not been very objective. They have been biased and they have been anti-Indian, 73, The representative of Portugal said that two years ago there were more troops in Goa and today there are legs troops; he is probably right there, But where have the troops gone? They have gone to Africa and, there too, they are doing their job very thoroughly. 74, The whole trend of the statement of the representative of Portugal is that Goa is an integral part of Portugal, that India has no right of any kind over its territory which is now said to be Portuguese Overseas Territory. Time and again they have raised the same point, For the last fourteen years they have refused to understand the trend of history. Thousands and thousands of miles separate Portugal and India and the same geographical gap exists between Goa and Portugal, That same gap exists in our way of thinking. We live in different centuries, How can you expect negotiations with a .country which has not understood the very essence of the times, which lives 300 or 400 years behind the times, which lives in a different age, a different era and has completely different concepts? And that is why, by sheer force and compulsion of circumstances, by the repeated rejections of our very reasonable demand for negotiations concerning the transfer of these colonial 75, But does the representative of the United States, when he talks of negotiations, think there is any chance of negotiations on the hasis that the representative of Portugal puts before us? We have had an important statement by the representative of the United States. His statements are always important and we pay very great attention to them, but what has he told us? He says, "We are not concerned with the substance of the dispute", That is to say, the basic problem, which is the colonial problem of Goa, does not interest him, Does not that statement show some kind of disregard, some kind of indifference, towards the motivations, the feelings of people, the great movement of our times, the yearning for freedom— the passionate yearning for freedom—and the various recitations that have been made in resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly. 76, Other representatives have also said that they are not concerned with the substance of the dispute, They say: "There must be a cease-fire, Indian armed forces must withdraw and there must be negotiations", when they know that Portugal will not negotiate at all on the question of the transfer of these territories to India, which are Indian territories and whose people are Indian, What is the implication of all this? We are bound to draw the conclusion that this means tacit support for the maintenance of the status quo, and that status quo is nothing else than Portuguese colonialism, I am sure that that cannot be the desire of the representative of the United States, Is he in favour of Portuguese colonialism in Goa? If he is, let him say so in so many words. He talks of double standards, He has said that the whole of our protestations of non-violence are a mockery, These are harsh words, and I am sorry that he has used them, If I wished to go through the United Nations archives and were inclined to be polemical, I could really say a great deal; but I will resist the tempta~ tion and will let it go at that. However, I would urge that the doubie standards referred to may be found in exactly what many delegations have said here: *We are not concerned with the substance of the dispute; cease fire, and withdraw your forces." Of course, the Portuguese forces must remain there in their glory and majesty! We are to have negotiations with a country on a basis such as Portugal wants. This, in our humble opinion and in the opinion of many millions of people who will read of these problems is, I am sorry to say, having double standards—not what we are saying and doing, 77. Our position is clear. We are a peaceful country. I think we are the most peaceful country in the United Nations—one of the most peaceful, anyhow. Nobody can point a finger at us. We adhere to the Charter. We have proved it time and again. We are supporting all actions by the United Nations at considerable sacrifice, and we have made no secret of it. As te the statement of my Prime Minister which the representative of Portugal quoted at the last meeting— absolutely prohibits force"; but the Charter itself does not completely eschew force, in the sense that force can be used in self-defence, for the protection of the people of a country—and the people of Goa are as much Indians as the people of any other part of India, We cannot accept any other position, 78, If the use of force is a mockery—and many representatives have said that it is not internationally moralTMif that is so, I would say that all freedom movements, all independent countries which have attained freedom through violent movements, should also come in that category, If fighting a colonial Power is immoral I am afraid the existence of many States around this table becomes immoral, The use of foree, in all circumstances, is regrettable but so far as the achievement of freedom is concerned, when nothing else is available, I am afraid that it is a very debatable proposition to say that force cannot be used at all, What about the Latin American countries? Did they not gain their freedom by the use of force against the colonial Power? Was that immoral? Certainly not. Today they fill the United Nations. They do so with great dignity, and, if I may say so, make a tremendous contribution to our deliberations and to the peace and welfare of the world, Our posi= tion has been clearly stated by our Prime Minister in the letter to the Secretary~General which has been made public, and in another letter that I have sent to him today which I hope he has received. The Prime Minister said to Press correspondents in New Delhi on 18 September: "India has undertaken action in Goa, as there was no other aliernative left to her. It was no pleasure to us to undertake armed action but the Portuguese left no choice open to us." This is the situation. These are the circumstances in which we had to have recourse to armed action, and this armed action is not an invasion. It cannot be an invasion because there cannot be an invasion of one's own country. 79. Many representatives have spoken in legal terms. I respect th ~~ point of view. I think they are juridically minded. We all are, but I think the representative of France said that, in stating that where it is responding every day, whether we like it or not General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), which has been referred to here and elsewhere very frequently, is the embodiment of that great leap forward in the public opinion of the world on these matters, There can be no getting away from that. Just as the process of decolonization is irreversible and irresistible, the embodiment of the principles in resolution 1514 (XV}, which has been accepted by virtually every member around this table, is irresistible, One cannot go be« hind that now. That is the new dictum of international law. That is how international law is made, because it is not a dead institution but something that is developing all the time. It was in that context that I said that, It was never my intention to cast an asper-~ sion upon, far less insult, the International Court of Justice. 80. The representative of Portugal has said that the International Court of Justice has pronounced as a fact the sovereignty of Portugal over Goa; I do not know where he got that from. The case that went to the International Court of Justice concerned Dadra and Nagar~Aveli, and even in the judgement of the Court it was said: "Article 17 of the treaty is relied upon by Portugal as constituting a transfer of sovereignty. From an examination of the various texts of that article placed before it, the Court is unable to conclude that the language employed therein was intended to transfer sovereignty over the villages to the Portuguese." 1/ Thus, the International Court of Justice has not accepted Portuguese sovereignty. The position is very far from that. 81. We are told that there should be negotiations in order to achieve a solution, but nobasis is mentioned. 1/ Case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Merits), Judgement of 12 April 1960: I.C.J. Reports 1960, p. 38. 82. But that is not the position accepted by Portugal, the representative of Portugal made it quite clear that that has never been the intention and is not now. So, what have we to negotiate for? When anyone says that we have to negotiate in order to achieve a solution, it really means approving in indirect terms the perpetuation of Portuguese claims and colonialism in Goa, 83. I could say a great deal more but the hour is late and I do not want to detain the members of the Council, I would only say this: I have read out the statement of the Prime Minister. The step that we have had to take was unavoidable; there was no re~ course left to us; there was no choice open to us. Our purpose was not annexation, We have gone into Goa to assist the freedom movement of Goa, to help the resistance movement of Goa, It is our people in Goa whom we have gone to help against Portuguese sup~ pression. If the representative of Portugal says that there is no such movemert in Goa, his intention is only to throw dust into tl ; eyes of this Council. The movement is strong. The patriots have risen, and if they were not able to do more previously it was be~ cause they were ruthlessly suppressed. We have gone there for that purpose; they are our people. They must come back to the motherland, 84. Someone raised the question of self-determina~ tion. How can there be selfdetermination by an Indian in order to say that he is part of India or self~ determination by an African to say that he is an Afri~ can, or by a Frenchman to say that he would remain a part of France? 85. There are instances when the question of selfdetermination can be appropriately raised in certain contexts. For example, when the question of Angola arose, we took the position that that was a question of self-determinetion, That is one large unit where selfdetermination has to be exercised and when it comes, it will be exercised in favour of the independence of Angola. But there can be no self-determination of an Indian against an Indian. That really becomes mean= ingless. Of course, it is true that the wishes of the people of some State could be ascertained, but there is only one choice for them and that is to be free as part of their great motherland. There is no other basis on which there can be freedom for the people into account the very vitel and tremendous forces that are crystallized in what goes by the name of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). There is no comprehension of that in the draft resolution, and as I said, we are bound to conclude that this only means a tacit approval of colonialism, of the perpetuation of Portuguese colonialism in Goa, 87, My Government is certainly strongly opposed to this draft resolution because we feel that it has no basis in reality or in justice and that it has no relation to the great movements and the vast tide of history which the United Nations itself has recognized in its numerous resolutions, notably resolution 1514 (XV). 88. Mr. STEVENSON (United States of America}: A decision in this case is so urgent that I should like to proceed with the introduction of a draft resolution with only a few further words. 89. It is clear as crystal on the basis of the facts and the complaint that the issue before the Security Council is not the right or the wrong of Portugal's colonial policy; it is the right or the wrong of one nation seeking to change an existing political and legal situation by the use of armed force. That is expressly forbidden in the Charter. There are no exceptions, except self-defence. And can anyone believe that huge India is acting in self-defence against this almost defenceless territory? The history that lies behind the day's events is well known. We know, as the world knows and has known—it has been said countless times in the General Assembly and in the Security Council, and I said it this afternoon—that the winds of change are blowing all over the world. Surely areas under Portuguese control are not immune to those winds. But I repeat that these winds of change are man-made and man can and must control them in the interests and security of all of us. They must not blow us into war. That is the point at issue here tonight. 90, Evidently I must remind the representative of India that the United States stand on colonial ques~ tions is forthright and we make no apology for it. We whole-heartedly believe in progress, in self-government and in self-determination for colonial peoples. In the past year we have supported many efforts to altered that stand. 91. After listening to some declarations here that the inhabitants of Goa want freedom from Portugal and that it is India's right and duty to use force to liberate them, I am obliged to remind the members of the Council that there are a lot of people in the world—in East Germany and all the way from the Baltic to the Black Sea—who want their freedom too. 92. Do I detect in this debate an implication that a country such as the United States, for example, is not really anti-colonial unless it approves the abolition of colonies by international armed attack? If so, the United States delegation totally rejects this implication. We are against colonialism and we are against war; we are for the Charter. And the overwhelming testimony of recent history upholds the force and the realism of this position. I have heen struck by two contentions made in defence of India's use of force here; first, that Goa is a colony or a Non-Self- Governing Territory and therefore, somehow force is permissible to be employed against it. Secondly, that Portugal has not relinquished control of Goa pursuant to the recommendation contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and,. therefore, that force is permissible to be used against it and that it is not India but Portugal that is the aggressor. 93. Let me comment on these contentions in turn. The first fact is that if Goa and its dependencies are a colony or a Non~Self-Governing Territcry of Portugal, they are not under the sovereignty of India. In fact, the Assembly last year decided just that, in resolution 1542 (XV). It affirmed that Goa is a Non= Self-Governing Territory of Portugal on which Portugal was required to report, and those who have taken other positions this afternoon supported that resolution at that time. The question is not whether Goa should or should not be under Portuguese authority. As a matter of obvious fact and international law, it is under Portuguese authority. This being the case, India cannot lawfully use force against Goa especially when the peaceful methods in the Charter have not been exhausted. And the claim that Portugal is the aggressor and not India, because it has not followed the recommendation of resolution 1514 (XV), requires an even greater exertion of the imagination. We support that resolution and we hope that it will be intelligently carried out. The Assembly has again acted, with our support, to the same end this year. But resolution 1514 (XV) does not authorize the use of force for its implementation. It does not and it should not and it cannot, under the Charter. If it did, the resolution would lead to international chaos, not to national progress. Resolution 1514 (XV) does not and 94, As I have said, I do not propose at this time to express a judgement on the merits of the territorial dispute between India and Portugal. They seem to me irrelevant. However, even if the United States were supporting entirely the Indian position on the merits, we should nevertheless be firmly opposed to the use of force to settle the question. The Charter, in its_ categorical prohibition of the use of force in the settlement of international disputes, makes no excep= tions, no reservations. The Charter does not say that all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means except in cases of colonial areas. It says again and again throughout its text that the basic principle of the United Nations is the maintenanee ef peace—not only peace in Europe or peace in America, but peace in Africa, peace in Asia, peace everywhere, 95. We know that it is the doctrine of the Soviet Union, as the Soviet representative made clear again today, that, while war in general may be reprehensi-~ ble, what they call wars of liberation and Communist revolutions to overthrow existing governments are quite another breed and are permissible, even desirable, 96. There have in the past been many wars of libera~ tion or of territorial conquest, depending on your choice of words, but our Charter was drafted in the recognition of the grim fact that in our times war is indivisible, that a war of liberation from colonialism is as likely as any other to lead to a world conflagration, and that the only way to ensure that mankind is spared that catastrophe is strictly, firmly and consistently to oppose the use of force in international disputes, wherever it may occur and however it may be justified, 97. I therefore submit the following draft resolution [S/5033], in collaboration with the United Kingdom, France and Turkey, and I urge the Council to adopt it promptly: "The Security Council, "Recalling that in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations all Members are obligated to settle their disputes by peaceful means and to .efrain from the threat or use of force in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, "Deploring the use of force by India in Goa, Damo and Diu, "Recalling that Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Charter specifies as one of the purposes of the "2, Calls upon the Government of India to withdraw its forces immediately to positions prevailing before 17 December 1961; "3. Urges the parties to work out a permanent selution of their differences by peaceful means in accordance with the principles embodied in the Charter; "4, Requests the Secretary-General to provide such assistance as may be appropriate." I hope very much that the Security Council can proceed this evening to vote on this and such other draft resolutions as may be before it.

I should Like, on behalf of the delegations of the United Arab Republic, Liberia and Ceylon, to introduce the draft resolution (S/5032] which now appears under the joint sponsorship of our three countries: "The Security Council, "Having heard the complaint of Portugal of aggression by India against the territories of Goa, Damo and Diu, "Having heard the statement of the representative of India that the problem is a colenial problem, "Considering that these enclaves claimed by Portugal in India constitute a threat to international peace and security and stand in the way of the unity of the Republic of India, "Recalling resolution 1514 (XV) and resolution 1542 (XV) of the General Assembly, "1, Decides to reject the Portuguese complaint of ageression against India; "2, Calls upon Portugal to terminate hostile action and to co-operate with India in the liquidation of her colonial possessions in India." 99. The main objective of our draft resolution is to place things in their proper perspective. A number of countries here have endeavoured to cloud the actual issues and to try to represent India as if that country were a diabolical aggressor. All kinds of arguments have been used to advance this point of view. 100. Even India's consistent history of peaceful and non-violent action has been used in a devious argument to prove that India has now offended against the light. The name of Mahatma Gandhi has been mentioned—not that the people who have invoked his name are necessarily impressed by the great things Gandhi stood for but because every argument is good if it can be used now against India. In this way Mahatma Gandhi—may his soul rest in peace—is put to a very un-Gandhian and partisan use by people, some of whom while he lived considered him, among other things, as a "half-naked fakir"TM. 101. We have now moved a long way from the time when Chateaubriand exclaimed, as he passed Trieste on his way to Greece: "Here begin the shores of 102. Today, all mankind belongs to that category of civilized humanity. Today, it is not the law of Chateaubriand and Lorimer that hold sway. Today, international law is the common law of mankind, not the international law of colonialism. The judicial basis of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) is clear beyond doubt. Hence the categorical imperative of our age is contained in that resolution. 103. Our draft resolution is an attempt to place issues in their proper light. India is not here on the defensive. India has, as its representative has shown, a very strong case against Portugal, because of Portugal's intransigence and unwillingness to negotiate; India has shown beyond doubt that Portugal is not a country with whom peaceful methods have a chance, In the struggle against colonialism the armed strength of the colonizers is usually the means by which colonial people are denied their aspirations. is rare for colonial peoples to have the advantage of armed strength. India undoubtedly has the military advantage over Portugal. Is the complaint here that this is so, that India can effectively redeem its terri-~ tory? Or do the colonial Powers want colonial peoples to be perennially subject and the strength of armed force to be only on the side of their oppressors? Are just wars allowed only to the big and strong and militarily significant nations? These are important and to our mind discriminating questions. 104. I do not want to say too much; it is indeed not necessary. Operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution says that the Council decides to reject the Portuguese complaint of aggression which it had made against India. It has been proved that India has not heen guilty of aggression, 105. Operative paragraph 2 calls upon Portugal to terminate hostile action and to comoperate with India in the liquidation of its colonial possessions in India. The hostile action of Portugal consisted in all kinds of provocative deeds such as massing large forces on the boundaries of India and Goa and other actions which I need not mention here because they have already been mentioned by the representative of India. We ask that Portugal co-operate with India in the liquidation of its colonial possessions in India because that would be the path of wisdom, the path that would lead to peace and prosperity for everyone concerned. The United Kingdom followed that path of sanity and wisdom; France also, when it decided to negotiate with India regarding the territories which France held at one time; and we should like Purtugal to do exactly the same. 106. We must in every single instance vindicate the principles laid down in General Assembly resolu~ tion 1514 (XV) which has so often been referred to here in this discussion. Colonialism assumes many complex forms. It needs a careful and thoughtful exercise of judgement to see all these forms and to recognize them for what they are. An attempt has

At the previous meeting, my delegation moved an adjournment of the Council until tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. so as to provide an opportunity for the delegations of Liberia and Ceylon to consult their Governments on the issues now being discussed. However, the Council decided that it -would convene tonight, as a result of which we are confronted with two draft resolutions: one sponsored by France, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States [S/5033], and the other by Ceylon, Liberia and the United Arab Republic [$/5032}j, 109, If I may prophesy, it appears to my delegation that neither of these draft resolutions will achieve any success here tonight and, in the words ofa famous American statesman and diplomat, we shall have had an exercise in futility. 110. I would propose, therefore, under rule 33, paragraph 3, of the provisional rules of procedure, that the Council should adjourn now and meet to~ morrow afternoon at 3 p.m., to enable delegations to consult and get in touch with their Governments.

The representative of Liberia has proposed that the meeting should be adjourned, in accordance with rule 33, paragraph 3 of the provisional rules of procedure, According to that rule the question may he discussed.

I see no need whatever for uny further delay in reaching a vote. This is an urgent and pressing matter. This is war. People are being killed, There is at least one proposal before the Council, the one that I submitted a few moments ago, which calls for a cease fire, for the restoration of normal conditions in this territory and a resumption of negotiations. 113. It would seem to me that it is clear from what has been said here that we are all ready, in fact, to take a decision on these two draft resolutions tonight, and I would urge that we proceed to do so.

Does the representative of Liberia wish me to put his motion to the vote?

I would se desire.

I put to the vote the motion for the adjournment of the meeting submitted by the delegation of Liberia. A vote was taken by show of hands. The result of the vote was 4 infavour, none against, with 7 abstentions, The motion was not adopted, having failed to obtain the affirmative votes of seven members.

As the motion has not been adopted by the Council, we shall continue the debate.

We have before us two draft resolutions. The draft resolution submitted by Ceylon, Liberia and the United Arab Republic [8/5032] quite rightly, in our view, rejects the Portuguese complaint of aggression against India and calls upon Portugal to terminate hostile action and to co-operate with India in the Liquidation of its colonial possessions in India. 119. The Soviet delegation considers that this state~ ment of the question is fully in accordance with the demands of the Declaration on the granting of in~ dependence to colonial countries and peoples adopted by the General Assembly [resolution 1514 (&V)], which this draft resolution recalls and that at the same time it establishes the conditions for a true cease-fire~gince if Portugal, ag a colonial Power, terminates its hostile action in the territory of Goa and commences negotiations with India to ensure the liquidation of its colonial possessions in that country, there will be no war and the affair will end ina peaceful manner, with the liberation of the people of Goa and their reunification with the people of India. 120. This is what was urged in the Declaration and mentioned in resolution 1654 (XVI) recently adopted by the General Assembly, which speaks of the need to accelerate the process of decolonization, in other words the complete elimination of the colonial system. It is in this light that the events now taking place in Goa should be considered. This is why the Soviet delegation fully supports this draft resolution and will vote for ‘it. 121. The draft resolution submitted by France, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States [8/5033], repeats certain general provisions of the United Nations Charter, which naturally retain their force and must be observed by all Members of the United Nations as a general principie; but it applies these provisions of the Charter to a situation and to events which have a completely different meaning in the light of the Declaration adopted in the General Assembly by an overwhelming majority of Members of the United Nations. They cannot therefore be the basis for the adoption of a decision, when the issue involved is the liquidation of colonial possessions and of old colonial empires, which should themselves have transferred these possessions to the States in whose territories they are located. 122. For this reason, the operative paragraphs of this draft resolution do not correspond to the principles proclaimed both in the Charter and in the Declaration; they are artificial, and inappropriate to 124, If the sponsors of this draft resolution had been consistent, on the basis of these provisions of the Charter they should have called upon their ally, Portugal, immediately to end its colonial domination in Goa and immediately to liberate the people of Goa, precisely in order to establish "friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples®. n= stead, the sponsors of the draft resolution accuse the Government and people of India of actions which are aimed at the liberation of the people of Goa. This is in complete contradiction with the stated purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, which they advance as the initial premise for the subse~ quent operative paragraphs. 125. The Government of India is also called upon to fwithdraw its forces immediately to positions prevailing before 17 December 1961", but there is absolutely no mention of the Portuguese forces, which were brought into Goa as reinforcements and have been threatening all the people of Goa and the neigh~ bouring population in the territory of India. This merely proves that the sponsors of the draft resolution show a unilateral approach to the essence of the problem, which is explained by their alliance with Portugal. 126, On the basis of ail these considerations, the Soviet delegation considers it not only impossible to support this draft resolution but also impossible to contribute in any way towards its adoption. The Soviet delegation will vote against this draft resolution. 127, The PRESIDENT (translated from French): Since there are no more speakers on my list, we can now take a vote on the two draft resolutions before the Council. 128, First I put to the vote the draft resolution sub= mitted by Ceylon, Liberia and the United Arab Republic [8/5032]. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Ceylon, Liberia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic. | Against: Chile, China, Ecuador, France, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. The draft resolution was rejected by 7 votes to 4.

I now put to the vote the draft resolution submitted by France, Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America [S/5033}. A vote was taken by show of hands. The result of the vote was 7 in favour and 4 against. The draft resolution was not adopted, one of the negative votes being that of a permanent member of the Council.

I believe that I am the only representative at this table who was present at the birth of the United Nations. { Tonight we are witnessing the first act in a drama. . which could end with the death of the Organization. ' ' The League of Nations died, { remind you, when its * - members no longer resisted the use of aggressive _ force. So it is with a most heavy heart that I must ' add a word of epilogue to this fateful discussion, by far the most important in which I have participated since this Organization was founded sixteen years ago. 181. The failure of the Security Council to call for a cease fire tonight in these simple circumstances is a failure of the United Nations. The veto of the Soviet Union is consistent with its long role of obstruction. But I find the attitude of some other members of the Council profoundly disturbing and ominous because we have witnessed tonight an effort to rewrite the Charter, to sanction the use of force in international relations when it suits one's own purposes. This approach can only lead to chaos and to the disintegration of the United Nations. 1382. The United States appeals again to the Government of India to abandon its use of force, to withdraw its forces. We appeal to both parties again to negotiage their differences. This is the course prescribed by the Charter. It is the course of wisdom. The inability of the Council to act because of the Soviet veto does not alter this fact. 1338. We will consult overnight with other members of the Council regarding further steps which might be taken by the United Nations and we reserve the right to seek a further meeting at any time.

The veto of the Soviet Union which has just been imposed will undoubtedly shock the conscience of the civilized world and considerably lessen its faith in the efficacy of the United Nations to ensure respect for international law and justice and even in its ability to stop a fully premeditated and unprovoked armed aggression. It is tragic that the brave but defenceless people of Goa have been cynically sacrificed to the idol of power and force. The world, and the Portuguese nation in particular, can never forget this brazen repudiation of the ideals of the United Nations and this cruel disregard of human lives. The right of might has been erected into a principle of international relations by one of the leading Powers in the world. The consequences of this flagrant immorality cannot fail to make themselves felt to the detriment of the whole world, 186. «. far as Portugal is concerned, my Government foimally and categorically reserves ail its rights in Goa, Damio and Diu, and will continue to defend them with all the means at its disposal, in this Organization or outside it, until the law of right is made to prevail again. 137. The Portuguese people will not fail to appreciate the efforts of those delegations which tried to uphold law and justice and the principles of the Charter.

The Soviet delegation had not intended to speak after the vote, since the whole meaning of the vote had been sufficiently explained in the preceding debate; but after the statement by the representative of the United States, who was fully supported by the representative of Portugal, I feel it necessary to say a few words. 139, The representative of the United States dra~ matically represented that today an act had been written of the drama which might be the beginning of the end of the United Nations. In my view, this dra~ matic statement is completely out of keeping with the substance of the decision or decisions taken today in the Security Council. Today saw, not the beginning of the end of the United Nations, but the expression of the will to defend colonial countries and peoples and their right to life, freedom and independence. The fact that the Council rejected proposals aimed at supporting the colonial Powers, at supporting their colonial right to oppress, proves the merit of the Council, not its weakness. 140. If the United Nations does not defend the co-~ lonial countries and peoples, but tries to defend the colonial system and the most reactionary repre~ sentatives of that system, then this indeed may mean the collapse of the United Nations, since at the pres= ent time and in the conditions of the twentieth century the United Nations can justify its existence primarily because it will be an organization defending the coloniai countries and peoples and defending the small nations against the colonial Powers, which are trying by every means to maintain their domination, in territories that are still vast, over millions and tens of millions of people. 141. The fact that the United Nations at the fifteenth session of the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, and at the sixteenth session reaffirmed this Declaration and took a decision calculated to accelerate the process of the liberation of colonial countries and peoples, places an obligation upon all United Nations organs to act in accord~ ance with this decision, which is an expression of the spirit of our time. Anyone who does not understand this does not understand the essence of the tasks now facing the United Nations. The Soviet Union is proud that it did not allow the adoption of a resolution which in fact would have meant support of the colonial Powers and, above all, of a colonial Power such as 143. In our opinion, today's meeting proves that it is now impossible to continue the old policy of oppress~ ing the colonial countries and peoples and that it is time to pass on to a truly constructive policy of liberating them; in this matter, the United Nations should assist the colonial countries and peoples. 144, Today's discussion has, I consider, helped the colonial countries and peoples that are fighting for their liberation. This is entirely in keeping with the purposes and principles which are set forth in the United Nations Charter and which the colonial Powers are trying to misinterpret in their own mercenary interests. We shall not condone such actions, and shall continue to defend the United Nations Charter and the principles which, stemming from that Charter, are in line with the interests of millions of people throughout the world,

The hour is late, and I do not wish to abuse the patience of the Council. Therefore, with reference to the remarks made by the representative of the Soviet Union, I only wish to say: history will judge which Member State has to~ night not only shamed the United Nations but indeed the whole of mankind, The meeting rose on Tuesday, 19 December, at 12,50 a.m, BELGIUM/BELGIQUE: ET MESSAGERIES DE 14-22, rue du Persil, CZECHOSLOVAKIA/TCHECOSLOVAQUIE: CESKOSLOVENSKY SPISOVATEL Ndrodni Tfida 9, Praha AFRICA/AFRIQUE CAMEROUN: LIBRAIRIE DU PEUPLE AFRICAIN La Gérante, B. P. 1197, Yaoundé. ETHIOPIA/ETHIOPIE: INTERNATIONAL PRESS AGENCY, P. O. Box 120, Addis Ababa. DENMARK/DANEMARK: EJNAR MUNKSGAARD, Ngrregade 6, Kgbenhavn, GHANA: UNIVERSITY BOOKSHOP University College of Ghana, Legon, Accra. MOROCCO/MAROC: CENTRE DE DIFFUSION DOCUMENTAIRE DU B.E.P.L., 8, rue Michaux-Bellaire, Rabat. FINLAND/FINLANDE: AKATEEMINEN KIRJAKAUPPA 2 Keskuskatu, Helsinki. FRANCE: EDITIONS SOUTH AFRICA/AFRIQUE DU SUD; VAN SCHAIK'S BOOK STORE (PTY,}, LTD. Church Street, Box 724, Pretoria. 13, rue Soufflot, Paris GERMANY (FEDERAL ALLEMAGNE (REPUBLIQUE R, EISENSCHMIDT Schwanthaler Str. 59, ELWERT UND MEUR Hauptstrasse 101, Berkn-Schéneberg, ALEXANDER HORN Spiegelgasse 9, Wiesbaden. W. E. SAARBACH Gertrudenstrasse 30, GREECE/GRECE: LIBRAIRIE KAUFFMANN 28, rue du Stade, Athénes, (ICELAND/ISLANDE:; BOKAVERZLUN SIGFUSAR EYMUNDSSONAR HU, Austurstraeti 18, Reykjavik. (RELAND/IRLANDE: Dublin. ETALY/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 GRUNOT TANUM Karl Johansgate, 41, 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, Zurich TURKEY/TURQUIE: LIBRAIRIE HACHETTE 469 Istiklal Caddesi, UNITED ARAS REPUBLIC/ REPUBLIQUE ARABE UN:? 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,a R. L., Phnom-Penh. CEYLON/CEYLAN: LAKE HOUSE BOOKSHOP Assoc, Newspapers of Ceylon, P. 0. Box 244, Colombo, CHINA/CHINE: THE WORLD BOOK COMPANY, LTD. 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 Sahar: 84, Dyakarta. SAPAN/JAPON: MARUZEN COMPANY, LTD, 5 Tori-Nichome, Nihonbashi, Tokyo. KOREA (REP. OF)/COREE (REP. DE): ZUL-YOO PUBLISHING CO,, LTD. 5, 2-KA, Chongno, Seoul. PAKISTAN: FHE PAKISTAN CO-OPERATIVE BOOK SOCIETY Dacca, East Pakistan. PUBLISHERS UNITED, LTD. ~ahore. THOMAS & THOMAS <arachi, PHILIPPINES: ALEMAR’S BOOK STORE 769 Rizal Avenue, Manila. UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST UNION DES REPUBLIQUES SOVIETIQUES: MEZHDUNARODNAYA KNYIGA, Smolenskaya SINGAPORE/SINGAPOUR: THE CITY BOOK STORE, LTD., Collyer Quay. UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNI: H. M. STATIONERY P. O. Box 569, London, {and HMSO branches FHAILAND/THAILANDE: PRAMUAN MIT, LTD. 35 Chakrawa: Road, Wat Tuk, Bangkok, HET-NAM (REP. OF/REP. DU): ABRAIRIE-PAPETERIE XUAN THU Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, 85, rue Tu-do, B. P. 283, Saigon. YUGOSLAVIA/YOUGOSLAVIE: CANKARJEVA ZALOZBA Ljubljana, Slovenia. DRZAVNO PREDUZECE Jsugoslovenska Knyiga, Beograd. PROSVJETA . 5, Trg Bratstva i Jedinstva, PROSVETA PUBLISHING iImport-Export Division, Terazije 16/1, Beograd. :UROPE \USTRIA/AUTRICHE: 3EROLD & COMPANY iraben 31, Wien, 1. 3, WULLERSTORFF farkus Sittikusstrasse 10, Salzburg. Irders and inquiries from countries where sales agencies have not yet been or to Sales Section, United Nations, Palais es commandes et demandes de renseignements émanant de pays ot il n’existe ONU, New York (E.-U.), ou 4 la Section des ventes, itho inUN. Price: $U.S.: 0.50 (or equivalent