72-74_08-4-The situation in Southern Rhodesia.pdf

(1163 KB) Pobierz
Chapter
VIII.
Maintenance
of international
peace
and security
102
read as follows:
The
resolution
Government
for
this
purpose.
including
the
sale
and
shipment
of
cquipmcnt
and
materials
for
the
manufacture
and
maintenance
of
The Security
Council,
and ammunition
arms
to
bc used
in
the
Territories
under
Portuguese
Ifming
reviewed
the
situation
in
the
African
territories
under
administration;
7.
Portuguese
administration,
Requesfs
the
SccrctaryCencral
to
follow
the
implementation
Huvinx
heurd
the
statements
of
those
individuals
invited
to
of
the
present
resolution
and
report
to
the
Security
Council
from
address
the
Council
on
this
qucrtion,
time
to time.
At the conclusion of the 1639th meeting, the President,
Taking
nofe
of
the
statement
of
the
Chairman
of
the
Special
Committee
on
the
situation
with
regard
to
the
Implcmcntation
of
with
the authorization
of the members
of the Council,
the
Declaration
on
the
Granting
of
lndepcndcncc
to
Colonial
made a statetnent
of consensus
on behalf of the Council
Countries
and
Pcoplcs.
gratitude
to the host country,
in particular
the
expressing
concerned
Gruvely
that
the
Government
of
Portugal
is
con-
Emperor and Government
of Ethiopia.”
tinuing
its
measures
of
rcprcssion
in
its
military
operations
against
the
African
pcoplcs
of Angola,
Mozambique
and
Guinea
(Bissau),
in
lcgitimatc
order
to
suppress
the
aspirations
of
the
pcoplcs
for
CONFLICT
IN
SOUTH
AFRICA
THE
QUESTION
OF
RACE
self-dctcrmination
and
indcpcndcncc.
RESULTING
FROM
TIIE
POLICIES
OF
APARTHEID
OF
THE
Deploring
the
refusal
of
the
Govcrnmcnt
of
Portugal
to
GOVERNMENT
OF THE
REPUBLIC
OF
SOUTH
AFRICA
implcmcnt
the
pertinent
resolutions
of
the
Security
Council,
adopted
on
the
question
of
the
Territories
under
Portugucsc
In the course of its meetings in Addis Ababa, the
Security Council considered among other issues the ques-
tion of upard~eid in South Africa and adopted resolution
31 1 (1972)
administration.
in
accordance
with
the
purposes
and
principles
of
the
Charter
of the
United
Nations,
Further
deploring
the
politics
and
actions
of those
States
which
continue
to
provide
Portugal
with
military
and
other
assistance.
relating to this item.79
which
it uses
to
pursue
its colonial
and
rcprcssive
policies
against
the
pcoplos
of Angola,
Mozambique
and
Guinea
(Bissau).
Seriously
concerned
at
the
repeated
violations
by
the
armed
THE
SITUATION
IN
SOUTHERN
RHODESIA
forces
of
Portugal
of
the
sovereignty
and
territorial
integrity
of
independent
African
States,
of 28 February
1972 (I 645th meeting): resolution
Decision
Deeply
dismrbed
at the
rcportcd
use
of
chemical
substances
by
314 (1972)
By letter so dated 15 February 1972 addressed to the
President of the Security Council, the representatives of
Guinea, Somalia and Sudan requested that the Council
meet to resume consideration of the problem of Southern
Rhodesia. They also included a request that the Council
extend an invitation in accordance with rule 39 to Mr. Abel
Muzorewa,
Portugal
in
its
colonial
wars
against
the
peoples
of
Angola,
Mozambique
and
Guinea
(Bissau),
Recognizing
the
legitimacy
of
the
struggle
of
the
liberation
movements
in
Angola,
Mozambique
and
Guinea
(Bissau)
in
their
demand
for
the
achicvcmcnt
of
self-determination
and
indcpen-
dence.
1.
Reafflrrns
inalicnablc
right
the
peoples
Angola,
the
of
of
Mozambique
and
Guinea
(Bissau)
to
self-determination
and
in-
Chairman
of the African
National Council of
dcpcndcnce,
as recognized
by
the
Ccncral
Assembly
in
its resolution
Zimbabwe, to address the Council.
At its 1640th meeting on 16 February 1972, the Council
included the letter by the three representatives together
with the fourth report*’ and the interim report” of the
Committee established in pursuance of Security Council
resolution 2.53 (1968) in its agenda. Following the adoption
of the agenda, the Council decided without objection to
extend an invitation to Mr. Muzorewa, as requested.*’ At
the same meeting, the representative of Saudi Arabia was
also invited, at his request, to participate
the legitimacy
1514
(XV)
of
14
December
1960,
and
recognizes
of
their
strugle
to achieve
that
right;
Condemns
2.
the
persistent
refusal
of
the
Government
of
Portugal
to
implement
General
Assembly
resolution
IS 14
(XV)
and
all
other
rclcvant
resolutions
of
the
Security
Council;
3.
ARuin
offirms
that
the
situation
resulting
from
the
policies
of
Portugal
both
in
its colonies
and
in
its constant
provocations
against
the
neighbouring
States
seriously
disturbs
international
peace
and
security
in
the
African
continent;
4.
Culls upon
Portugul:
without
the right
to vote
in discussion. a4
The item
((I)
To
rccognizc
immcdiatcly
the
right
of
the
peoples
of
the
on
the
agenda
was
Territories
under
its
administration
to
self-determination
and
considered
at the
1640th
to 1642nd
and the
1645th
indcpendance,
in
accordance
with
General
Assembly
resolution
meetings from 16 to 25 and on 28 February
1972.
1514
(XV);
At
the 1640th meeting, Mr. Muzorewa
said that the
(b)
To
ccasc
immediately
the
colonial
wars
and
all
acts
of
African
National Council which
he represented
had been
rcprcssion
against
the
pcoplcs
of
Angola,
Mozambique
and
Guinea
(Bissau);
(c)
To
withdraw
all
its
armed
forces
as presently
employed
for
‘*
1639th
meeting.
para.
178.
For
the
text
of
the
statement
ser
the
purpose
of the
rcprcssion
of
the
peoples
of Angola,
Mozambique
SCOR,
27th
yr.,
Resolurions
und
Decisions
of
the
Security
also,
and
Cuinca
(Bissau);
Council
19 72, p. 3.
(d)
To
promulgate
an
unconditional
political
amnesty
and
the
79
For
relevant
proceedings
see
in
this
chapter
the
procedural
restoratlon
of democratic
political
rights;
history
of
the
meetings
in
Addls
Ababa
under
the
heading
“Consideration
of
questions
relating
to
Africa
with
which
the
(e)
To
transfer
power
to
political
institutions
freely
elected
and
Security
Council
is currently
seized
and
the
implementation
of
the
rcprcxntatlvc
of
the
pcoplcs.
in
accordance
with
General
Assembly
Council’s
resolutions”.
esp.
p. 101.
resolution
I5 I4
(XV);
*’
SllO540.
OR,
27th
yr..
Suppl.
forJon.-March
1972.
p. 50.
5.
Agoin
culls
upon
Portugal
to
refrain
from
any
violations
of
the
sovereignty
and
territorial
integrity
of African
States;
OR,
26th
yr.,
Specti
Suppl.
a’
S/l0229
and
Add.1
and
2.
No.
2.
a2 S/10408.
Culls
6.
upon
all
Stales
to
refrain
forthwith
frorn
offering
the
Portuguese
Government
any
assistance
which
would
enable
it
to
OR.
26thyr..
Suppl.
for
Ocr.-Dec.
1971,
pp.
78-79.
continue
its
rcprcssion
of
the
pcoplcs
of
thr
Territories
under
its
a3
1640th
meeting,
para.
1.2.
administratton,
and
to
take
all
the
necessary
measures
to
prevent
the
a4 Ibid.,
paras.
56-57.
sale
and
supply
of
arms
and
military
equipment
to
the
Portuguese
822107521.032.png 822107521.033.png 822107521.034.png 822107521.035.png 822107521.001.png 822107521.002.png 822107521.003.png
103
Part
II.
formed in December 1971 with the objective to explain and
expose the dangers of accepting the Anglo-Rhodesian
settlement proposals and to co-ordinate the campaign for
their non-violent rejection by the African yeoplc of the
country. lfe declared that these proposals were based on
the illegal and racist 1969 Rhodesia Front Constitution and
that their claim to provide majnrity rule was ridiculed by
constitutional experts. Before and after the Unilateral
IIeclaration of Independence (UDI), the British (;ovem-
ment had excluded the African leaders from its dialogue
with the Rhodesian authorities. The ANC demanded that
the Rhodesian problem should not be settled without the
active participation of the African people in the nego-
tiations leading to such a settlement and that the settlement
should not legalize UDI and the Republican Constitution.
The ANC called on the Security Council to press the United
Kingdom
up these recommendations and in this manner underline the
importance it attached to its own decisions.8”
The
the
USSR
stated
that
representative
of
Mr. Muzorewa’s
statement
as well
as the
information
prcsentcd
by the rcprescntativc
of ZAPlJ
and ZANU
at
Addis
Ahaba showed
conclusively
that the African
people
of
Zimbabwe
rejected
the British-Rhodesian
proposals
categorically
and unanimously.
tle stressed
once again that
his
Government
sharply
condemned
the deal between
Britain
and the racist
Smith
rCgime
and rejected
the
unworthy
mantleuvres designed to lend this minority
regime
a respectable character.
tle called upon Britain to renounce
the
agreements
with
Rh:dcsia
and
to
implement
the
measures
proposed
by the African
spokesmen
at Addis
Ababa, including negotiations
and a constitutional
confcr-
ence with
the participation
of the authentic representatives
to honour
the principles
of General Assembly
of the people of Zimbabwe.
In conclusion
he reiterated his
resolution
1514
(XV)
of
14 December
1960 on the
Government‘s
support
for effective
measures
to eliminate
Granting
of
Independence
to
Colonial
Countries
and
the racist regime in Southern
Rhodesia
and to enable the
Peoples and to maintain
the prohibition
of economic or
people of Zimbabwe
to exercise
its
legitimate
right
to
diplomatic
relations
with
the Smith rCgime. The Africans
self-determination and independence.87
The representative
accepted sanctions
as a price for their freedom and rejected
of the United
Kingdom
expressed
any
claim
that
sanctions
should
bc lifted
to alleviate
doubt that Mr. Muzorewa
spoke for all Africans
in South-
African suffering.
The ANC also urged the Council and the States
supporting the cause of human freedom to intensify
sanctions by fully blockading the ports of Beira and
LourenGo Marques under Chapter VII of the Charter for all
goods exported from or imported into Rhodesia.
Mr. Muzorewa decried the resumption by the United States
of the purchase of chrome from Rhodesia, which in his
opinion had no other purpose than to boost the morale of
the racist rtgime, and suggested an investigation whether
the United States violated the law; if this were the case, the
violation should be brought before the International Court
of Justice. He also asked the Council to confer proper
international refugee status upon the refugees and to grant
asylum to those who have to leave the territory. He
expressed the hope that Member States would at least stop
the immigration
em Rhodesia, and he reminded
the Council
that Bishop
Muzorewa
himself
had spoken
in favour
of the Pearce
Commission
completing
its task. tlis delegation had there-
fore
been arguing that
the Council
should
suspend
its
judgement on the proposals until the results were known.“’
At the beginning of the 164lst
meeting on 24 February
1972, the President drew
the attention
of the members
of
the
Council
to
the draft
resolution
which
had been
submitted by Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan.*9
At the same meeting, the representative of Somalia
commented on the fourth report of the Sanctions Com-
mittee and suggested that the mandate of the Conlmittee
should be widened so that it would collect, sift and analyse
all reports of known or suspected violations of sanctions,
whatever the source, and that it should be provided with
the necessary machinery to attain those objectives. The
proposal by Bishop Muzorewa to extend the sanctions by a
blockad? of Beira and LourenGo Marques under
Chapter VII had also been discussed in the Committee, but
no agreement had been reached on it. The Council could
not make its decisions effective if it did not stop Portugal’s
and south Africa’s defiance of obligations under Article 25
of the Charter. The continuation of sanctions did not
depend on the outcome of the British-Rhodesian arrange-
ments, but on the decision of the Security Council. Turning
to the recommendations contained in the interim report of
the Committee, he briefly recalled that the decision of the
United States to permit the import of Rhodesian chrome
ore had led to the urgent call of the three African members
for
of their citizens’into
Rhodesia, in accord-
ance with
Security
Council
resolution
253 (1968).
The
ANC
did not seek to expel the white
settlers
from
the
country;
it
tried
to
achieve
peaceful and just
racial
coexistence
in order to avoid the impending bloodshed and
was
willing
to pay the price of repatriation
for those who
wanted
to leave under majority
rule. His organization
was
prepared to frame a constitution
acceptable to the Africans
and those
white
people who
accepted
non-racism
and
majority rule.85
The representative of Somalia deplored that the preoccu-
pation with the Anglo-Rhodesian proposals seemed to
weaken the resolve to make sanctions workable and
enforceable. The Council had in the past been of one mind
on this task, but recently the reports about violations of the
sanctions had increased markedly. He emphasired the set of
recommendations unanimously adopted by the Sanctions
Committee and contained in the supplementac report.
whereby the Committee tried to impress upon the inter-
national community the need to enforce sanctions vigor-
ously. He hoped the Council would at its next meeting take
a meeting of the Committee
to review
the American
decision. There was unanimity
among the 15 members
of
the Committee
to address a report
to the Council which
would
recall
the
decision
of
the Council
to
impose
sanctions
under Chapter VII and the obligation imposed on
-
a’ Ibid.. pans. 27-29.
” 7 Ihd , paras. 30-t
I, 6 I.
MM fbd.,
pclras. 46-48
opening statcnient
89
164lct
meeting.
by
the
President.
a’
1640th
meeting.
para.
3.20
S/l~SJl,
OR.
27th
.vr.. SuppI,
for
Jan.-March
1972,
pp.
50-51.
822107521.004.png 822107521.005.png 822107521.006.png 822107521.007.png 822107521.008.png 822107521.009.png 822107521.010.png
Chapter VIII.
104 .____- ___-
all Member States to prevent the import of Rhodesian
commodities and products. As suggested by the Committee,
the Council should state that any legislation or other
measure permitting the import of Rhodesian chrome
weakened the effectiveness of the sanctions, and it should
call upon all States not to take any such act violating the
provisions of resolution 253 (1968).
The representative of Somalia then introduced the draft
resolution co-sponsored by the dclcgations of Guinea and
Sudan. The draft was based primarily on the recommend-
ations of the Committee and designed to assure the
international community that the sanctions would continue
to be carried out against Southern Rhodesia without
exception so as to bring the illegal rebellion to an end.90
The representative of France expressed general support
for the draft resolution, but suggested several changes in the
operative part. With regard to paragraph 1, he commented
that the original purpose of the sanctions had been defined
as being the end of the illegal regime, whereas the draft
resolution indicated the exercise of the right of self-
determination, and he proposed to restore the initial
formulation to maintain the Council’s flexibility of action
and perhaps to reaffirm the right to self-determination in
another paragraph. Concerning paragraph 2, he pointed out
that not all resolutions pertaining to Rhodesia were
mandatory, since only some of them had been adopted
under Chapter VII. Therefore, it would be more accurate to
urge the full implementation
Maintenance
of international
peace
and
security
~__ ~~.
might be necessary,
or the Council itself should deal with
the report
in a much more thorough
fashion than it had
done so far.9 3
At the 1642nd meeting on 25 February 1972, the
representative of the USSR criticised what he called the
tactic of representatives of some Western countries to block
the adoption by the Committee of concrete recommen-
dations the implementation of which would strengthen the
effectiveness of the sanctions. He alleged that these
representatives tried to divert the Committee’s work into
technicalities and to prevent it from fulfilling its political
mandate. He added that with the action of the United
States the Council faced a new situation. In view of the
violation of the sanctions by South Africa, Portugal and the
United States he drew
the attention
of the Council to the
General
Assembly
resolutions
2765
(XXVI)
and 2796
(XXVI)
and emphasized
that sanctions
under Chapter VII
were
not only binding but also enforcement
measures in
their
substance.
He recalled resolution
277 in which
the
permanent
members
of the Council
were
identified
as
especially responsible
for the implementation
of the sanc-
tions and he cited Article 25 as further
confirmation
of the
compulsory
nature of sanctions.
He urged the Council to
accept the proposals
of the African
countries
and of the
Sanctions Committee
and to expand the scope of sanctions
against Rhodesia,
to apply strict
sanctions
against South
Africa
and Portugal in accordance
with
resolution
2796
of all mandatory
resolutions
(XXVI),
and to demand
from
the Government
of the
or to list the three resolutions
that fell under that category.
United States unconditional
compliance with its obligations
Obviously,
Article
25 could not be applied to resolutions
under
the Charter
with
regard to the sanctions
against
which
were
not
adopted
within
the
framework
of
Southern Rhodesia.94
The representative of Somalia introduced the revised
draft resolution” which incorporated suggestions by
France, India and other members. In the second preambular
paragraph the word “Reaffirming” would be replaced by
“Recalling”. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 6 had undergone
considerable changes reflecting mainly the French com-
ments. In conclusion he reaffirmed that even if the rebel
regime were accorded legal recognition, the responsibility
of the United Nations to ensure that the illegal @me
would be brought to an end and that the people of the
Territory could exercise their right to self-determination,
would in no way end.96
The representative of Saudi Arabia* called sanctions
desirable, but not implementable, because economic con-
siderations would always tend to outweigh political objec-
tives, and he called for effective measures that would
Chapter VII.91
The representative of China stated that his Government
and the Chinese people supported the recent resolution of
the Organization of African Unity calling for widening the
sanctions against the racist regime of Rhodesia and for
imposing sanctions upon South Africa and Portugal for
their refusal to implement the resolutions of the Security
Council. The Council should* also sternly condemn the
violation by the United States of the sanctions imposed by
the United Nations. In view of reports about covert import
of Rhodesian chrome by certain big Powers his delegation
deemed it necessary to entrust the Council Committee on
sanctions and other related United Nations organs with
serious investigations into these violations of the sanctions.
In conclusion he announced that his delegation supported
the draft resolution.92
The
really
hurt
the Rhodesian
rtgime,
such as an appeal to African
representative
of
India suggested
that
the draft
workers
in the chrome ore industry
to boycott
Rhodesia’s
resolution
needed further
consideration
and had to be
most
profitable
industry
by strike,
combined
with
the
improved
in particular
in the first
three paragraphs.
He
establishment
of a special UN
fund
to support
these
noted
that
while
the new
United
States
legislation,
if
workers
during
the
strike.
Such steps
would
help
to
enacted,
would
violate the sanctions,
many other Govem-
accelerate the process of self-determination.97
The President, speaking
ments
had been violating
those
provisions
since their
adoption.
The Council
could
not stop
with
the draft
as the representative
of Sudan,
resolution
but
should
go much
more
deeply
into
the
declared that the draft
resolution called for no more than
matter,
strengthen
and broaden the sanctions,
publicize
violations
and make
every
effort
to discover
and stop
by India.
Ibid.,
93
intervention
leakages and to improve the machinery.
Some improvement
paras. 3-33.
in the working
methods
of the Committee
on sanctions
94
1642nd
meeting.
9s
S~1054l/Kcv.1
adopted
with
n small
chanpc
as resolution
314
(1972).
96
9o
164lst
meeting,
intervention
by
Somalia.
I6JZnd
mectmg,
paras.
3546.
Ibid..
91
intervention
by
France.
97 Ibid.,
paras.
5267.
92 Ibid..
intervention
by
China.
822107521.011.png 822107521.012.png 822107521.013.png 822107521.014.png 822107521.015.png 822107521.016.png 822107521.017.png
105
Part
II.
--.
-__
-..---
~..
Subsequently, the representative of Somalia requested a
separate vote on paragraph I .’ O3 Paragraph I was adopted
by I4 votes to none, with 1 abstention. The draft resol-
ution as a whole was adopted by I3 votes in favour to none
against, with 2 abstentions.’
the full application
of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia
and for
the compliance
of all Member States with
their
obligations
in this respect .9*
At the 3645th meeting on 28 Februaq 1972. the
representative of Belgium, in expressing his delegation’s
s!~pport for the draft resolution, commented on para-
graph 6 in which the Sanctions Committee was once again
charged with the double task of studying and recommend-
ing the means to ensure the implementation of sanctions;
he pointed out that the provision that the Committee itself
could make suggestions on its terms of reference went
beyond the purely technical mandate issued to it under
resolutions 253 (1968) and 277 (1970), but his delegation
would nevertheless vote for paragraph 6 with understanding
that the Council gave the Committee the authority to
prepare recommendations on its terms of reference with-
out, however, making this obligatory, as was the case with
the terms of reference in its previous resolution.”
The representative of France expressed his appreciation
for the acceptance by the sponsors of his delegation’s
suggestions and declared that his delegation would vote for
the draft resolution. Commenting on paragraph 6 he
wondered whether the stipulated date of 1 April 1972 for
submission of the Committee’.; special report could not be
cllangcd to IS April to allow the Committee to complete its
task under the draft resolution.’
O4 It read as follows:
The Sectrritv
Council.
llaving
considered
the
rcccnt
dcvclopmcnts
concerning
the
question
of Southern
Rhodesia,
Recalling
its resolutions
216
(1965)
of
12 November
1965.
217
(196S),
of
20
Novcmbcr
1965,
221
(1966)
of
9 April
1966,
232
(1966)
of
16 Dccembcr
1966,
253
(1968)
of
29
May
1968.
277
(1970)
of
18 March
1970
and
288
(1970)
of
17
Novcmbcr
1970,
Gruvely
concerned
that
ccrtin
States
have
not
complied
with
the
provisions
of
resolution
253
(1968).
contrary
to
their
obli-
gations
under
Article
25
of the
Charter
of
the
United
Nations,
Taking
info
uccounr
the
fourth
report
of
the
Committce
established
in
pursuance
of
Security
Council
resolution
253
(1968)
and
its
interim
report
of
3 Dcccmbcr
1971,
Acting
in
accordance
with
previous
decisions
of
the
Security
Council
on
Southern
Rhodesia,
taken
under
Chapter
VII
of
the
Charter,
1.
Reuffirms
its
decision
that
the
present
sanctions
against
Southern
Rhodesia
shall
remain
fully
in
force
until
the
aims
and
objcctivcs
set
out
in
resolution
253
(1968)
arc
completely
achieved;
2.
Urges
all
States
to
implement
fully
all
Security
Council
resolutions
establishing
sanctions
against
Southern
Rhodesia..
in
accordance
with
their
obligations
under
Article
25
and
Article
2.
O”
paragraph
6. of
the
Charter
of
the
United
Nations
and
deplores
the
attitude
of
those
States
which
have
persisted
in
giving
moral,
This suggestion
was
accepted by the representative
of
political
and
economic
assistance
to
rhe
illegal
r&me;
Somalia on behalf of the sponsors.’ ”
Addressing himself to the criticism voiced against his
Government’s decision to lift the sanctions on Rhodesian
chrome ore, the representative of the United States stated
that the decision had been necessitated by considerations of
national security. He pointed out that the sanctions against
Rhodesian chrome were violated on a large scale by many
cc untries including members of the Council. These alle-
gations should be investigated. He recalled that his Covern-
ment had been unable to obtain general agreement that
where
Declurer
3.
that
any
legislation
passed,
or
act
taken.
by
any
State
with
a
view
to
permitting,
directly
or
indirectly.
the
importation
from
Southern
Rhodesia
of
any
commodity
falling
within
the
scope
of
the
obligations
imposed
by
resolution
253
(1968).
including
chrome
ore,
would
undermine
sanctions
and
would
be
contrary
to
the
obligations
of States;
upon
4.
Culls
all
States
lo
refrain
from
taking
any
measures
that
would
in
any
way
permit
or
facilitate
the
importation
from
Southern
Rhodesia
of
commodities
falling
within
the
scope
of
the
obligations
imposed
by
resolution
253
(1968),
including
chrome
ore:
5.
Dmws
the
attention
of
all
States
to
the
need
for
increasing
there
was
reasonable
doubt
about
the origin of
vigilance
in
implcmcnting
the
provisions
of
resolution
253
(1968~
imported
minerals,
those minerals
should be subject
to
and,
accordingly,
calls
upon
them
to
take
more
effcctivc
measures
effective chemical tests. His Government
proposed that the
to
ensure
full
implementation
of the
sanctions;
Council ask the Committee
to request from Governments
Requesrs
6.
the
Committee
established
in
pursuance
of Security
periodic
reports
on the importation
of strategic
minerals
Council
resolution
253
(1968)
to
meet,
as a matter
of
urgency,
to
from
all sources.
Such reports
would
greatly
assist
the
consider
ways
and
means
by
which
the
implementation
of sanctions
may
be
ensured
and
to
submit
to
the
Council,
not
later
than
IS
Committee
to obtain a fuller picture of on-going trade with
April
1972,
a report
containing
recommendations
in
this
rcspcct.
Rhodesia.
In
the
case of questionable
shipments
the
including
any
suggestions
that
the
Committee
might
wish
to
make
Committee
could
request
and
obtain
samples
of such
concerning
its
terms
of
reference
and
any
other
mcasurcs
designed
shipments
and test
to cn\urc
the
effcctivencss
of its work:
them
chemically
to
determine
their
origin.
tiis
Government
would
be
prepared
taco-operate
7.
Requesrs
the
Secrctary-C;encral
to
provide
all
approprlatc
fully
in
this
effort.
In conclusion
he announced
his
atsi%mce
to the Committee
in
the
discharge
of
its task.
delegation’s
abstention
on
the
draft
resolution
because
it
W&ion
of 28 July 1972 (1655th meeting):
resolution 318
not accept those parts of the draft resolution
which
could
(1972)
At
directly
or
indirectly
affected
laws
which
had
been
adopted
its
1654th meeting on 78 July
1972, the Council
and
had
to
be
implemented
under
the
Constitution
of
the
included
the special report”’
dated 9 May 1972 of the
United States.’ ’ 2
Committee
established
in
pursuance
of
Security
Council
resolution
253 (1968)
in its agendalo
and considered
that
lo3
Ibid.,
para.
88.
98
1642nd
mcetmg,
pJras.
69-81
Ibid..
lo4
paras.
91-92.
S/1054l/Rcv.l
and
Corr.l
adopted
a\
99
1645th
meeting,
J-IO.
p3ras.
resolution
314
(1972).
loo
Ibid,,
ptird\.
15-17.
for
‘OS
OR.
27th
yr..
Suppl.
April-June
IY7.?.
5110632.
lo’
Ibid,.
para.
20.
pp.
4749.
lo6
lo2
lhrd,
paras.
2942.
1654th
meeting.
prccedinp
para.
1.
822107521.018.png 822107521.019.png 822107521.020.png 822107521.021.png 822107521.022.png 822107521.023.png 822107521.024.png
106
Chapter
VIII.
Maintenance
of international
peace
and
securi@
item during
its 1654th and 1655th meetings on 28 July
The representative of Yugoslavia, in endorsing the
recommendationsand proposalsof the Committee, pointed
out the scope of the Committee’sresponsibilities,ascited
in paragraph22, extended to all political aspects of the
situation in and around Southern Rhodesia that affected
the implementation of sanctions and not merely their
technical aspects.’I0
The representative of Somalia emphasizedthe signifi-
cance of three measuresrecommendedin the Committee
report. The inclusion of inter-governmental agenciesand
non-governmental organizationsassuppliersof information
about suspected violations promised to improve signifi-
cantly the Committee’s capacity of monitoring the im-
plemention of the sanctions.The report spelled out the fact
that documentation from southern Africa, mainly from
Portuguese-controlledterritories and South Africa, in res-
pect of goodsproduced alsoby Southern Rhodesiahad to
be considered suspect. In view of Portugal’s and South
Africa’s refusal to co-operate with the United Nations, the
Council should decide what action to take againstthesetwo
countries who continually violated international law, the
decisionsof the Council and the provision of Article 25 of
the Charter. Finally, the Committee recognized the need
for the employment of experts in various fields to assist
1972.
Ths representative of Sudan speaking as Chairman of the
Committee established in pursuance of Security Council
resolution 253 (1968), presented the special report of the
Committee in accordance with paragraph 6 of resolution
314 (1972). He stated that parts I, II and III, and
paragraph 7 of the report had been accepted by all
delegations, except for the United Kingdom delegation
which entered a blanket reservation on all these parts, on
paragraph7 and on part IV aswell. No generalagreement
was possible on part IV and, therefore, the individual
positions of representativeswere recorded. In reviewing the
recommendationsin part 111,he made specialreference to
the proposal to change the name of the Committee and
addressedhimselfto the method of work which left a lot to
be desired. The Committee had so far not even been able to
inform the public about casesof evasionsof sanctions;it
did not dispose of a system of information about trade
statistics or inspection of suspectedgoods from Southern
Rhodesia and had failed to enlist the co-operation of
influential world trade organizations. While the recom-
mendationsin part III merely attempted to make up for the
Committee’s handicaps,part Iv, in the view of the African
membersand of those who sharedtheir point of view, was
most significant for the effective implementation of sanc-
tions. These delegations called for more decisive action
against States, such as Portugal and South Africa, which
openly refuse to comply with the sanctions against the
Smith regime. They also would like the Committee to
recommend to the Council condemnation of the United
States for violating the sanctions. Others demanded the
extension of sanctionsagainst Portugal and South Africa.
AS the Chairman pointed out, there was another group of
delegations who agreed with the African members in
principle, but held that those demandswere beyond the
mandate of the Committee. In conclusion, the Chairman
pointed out that the draft resolutionwasbasedonly on the
recommendations under part III, and he hoped that it
would be acceptedby all membersof the Council.’ ”
The representative of the India proposedthat the scope
of the sanctionsshould be extended and the boycott of the
illegal regimeapplied to communications, passports,postal
services, and cultural, social and other activities. The
administering Power should decide to make sanctions
permanent, and the Secretariat should be askedto prepare
an up-to-date list of existing legislation passedby various
countries for implementingsanctions.“*
The representative of Belgium reaffirmed the position
that the Committee could only play an auxiliary role and
that the Council, even if it wished it so, would not be free
to delegateto a subordinatebody the responsibilitieswhich
the Charter conferred upon it alone. The Council function-
ing as a standing body did not need organs to exerciseits
powers in its name and in its place. The Committee should
not allow itself to be distracted from its essentialtask,
which was to verify the implementation of sanctions, by
inquiries about roblemsof method, however fundamental
they might be.’ t 9
in
the implementation of the sanctions.’’ ’
At the 1655th meeting on 28 July 1972, the represent-
ative of Sudan introduced, on behalf of the delegationsof
Guinea, Somalia and Sudan, the draft resolution” ’ per-
taining to the Ccmmittee report. He pointed out that the
sponsorshad chosena very mild draft resolution leaving out
the political importance of the question of sanctions in
order to achieve unanimoussupport. The draft document
even refrained from condemningMember Stateswhich were
breaching the sanctions, such as Portugal and South
Africa.’ ”
The representative of the United Kingdom announced
that hisdelegation would lift the blanket reservationagainst
the report and its recommendationsand would endorsethe
proposals in part III some of which had their origin in
British suggestionsor had previously been decidedupon by
the Council. He expressedhope that the Committee would
take up the casesand the relevant material under investi-
gation, since there was much work to be done. His
delegation would support the draft resolution which re-
newed the pressureon the regime in Rhodesiaand set out
the responsibilities of Governments and of the United
Nations in clear terms.’ ’ 4
The representative of the United States regretted that
the draft resolution wasmore substantive than procedural.
ashis delegation had expected a strictly procedural one.’ ’ 5
The representative of China supported the African
proposals in part IV, called for the extension of the
sanctions to cover South Africa and Portugal and for a
condemnation of the United Stateson account of its recent
p3r;Is.
'lo
45-55.
’ ’ ’ Ihrd., paras. 6 146
’ ”
Ibid.
S/10747.
adopted
without
change
as rc~olution
318
(1972)
meeting,paras.S-18
lo7
1654th
’ I3
IhSSth
meeting.
para<.
2-Y.
parcls.
22.28.
‘OS
Ibid..
' I4
fhd.
para\.
I l-16.
lo9
Ibid.,
paras.
3043
’ ’ 5 Ibid..
para.
20.
822107521.025.png 822107521.026.png 822107521.027.png 822107521.028.png 822107521.029.png 822107521.030.png 822107521.031.png

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin