United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) online

. (page 21 of 101)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 21 of 101)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

servants, adequately developed trade and industry,
an effective and widespread educational system are
among the most precious resources any newly
emerged or emerging nations can have. Despite
understandable impatience, the leaders of these
nations should be prepared to insist on achieving
them to the maximimi attainable degree before em-
barking on the rough and dangerous waters of a
world in turmoil.

It is easy to shout '■'■UhuruP'' or "Freedom!" in
any language. But if a country is to be truly
free, its people and its leaders must have the in-
stitutions and the knowledge to enable them wisely
to choose year after year, through all the years
ahead — to make the great sovereign choices which
will determine their national destinies. And such
fateful choices, Mr. President, must be made not
only at the outset of a nation's independence but in
«very succeeding year and decade of its national
career. The power to make these choices is the
most precious patrimony of every nation. A na-
tion which is not free to make such choices for
itself is, to that extent, not free at all.

For a nation to have such freedom, two things
are necessary. It must have in its own hands, in-
stead of in alien hands, the right to decide. And,
no less vital, it must have among its people and
among its leaders the knowledge and experience
which alone confer the ability to decide.

There is no counsel of perfection. Every free
nation runs the risk of making the wrong choice.
But every nation also must have the knowledge and
experience which at least give it a fair chance to
choose wisely and well. Only thus can the new
nations have the strength to preserve their inde-
pendence. The importance of this concept has
been wisely and properly emphasized here by a
number of delegates, notably by the distinguished
Foreign Minister of Nigeria in introducing his far-
sighted resolution.'

• U.N. doc. A/L. 357.

What the U.N. Can Do

Now, Mr. President, the question remains which
most directly concerns us here in this Assembly :
"Wliat can the United Nations do now to speed
and guide the decolonizing process?

The nature of United Nations action must vary
with the types of situations presented which, as
we have seen, are radically different in different
places. The Assembly's famous Resolution 1514
last December called for "immediate steps" by the
administering powers toward ending colonial rule.
In many places this has presented little or no
problem. Tanganyika, to take but one example,
was already far along the road and will actually
achieve independence next month. On the other
hand, in the Portuguese territories in Africa the
people's right to ultimate self-determination has
not yet been recognized by the Government.

Then there are other cases, of which the Trust
Territory of New Guinea is an example, where
the administering authority — in this case Aus-
tralia — has fully accepted, both in law and in
practice, its charter responsibilities but where
tens of thousands of the people are not yet in touch
with the outside world. They still have a long
period of development ahead before they could
hope to be a viable independent nation.

We of the United States believe that the United
Nations has two quite different tasks in this whole
field. Toward the governments which, unfortu-
nately, have been slow and imwilling to accept
their responsibilities under the charter, we believe
the right course is to appoint special committees to
investigate the situation in the area, to consult
with and persuade the governing powers, to keep
the General Assembly informed, to make specific
recommendations, and to maintain on each of
these situations the clearly focused judgment of
world opinion. We are confident that this method
will yield i-esults in due time, though not as soon
as many of us would wish.

Clearly such a course would be entirely inap-
propriate for the other cases, in which the govern-
ing power has accepted its responsibilities under
the charter and is working in good faith with the
indigenous population to carry them out. Wlien,
for instance, a government which administers a
non-self-governing territory faithfully reports to
the General Assembly, through the Committee on
Information From Non-Self-Governing Terri-

Departmenf of Stafe Bulletin

tories, on the administration of this area, on social
and economic and even j^olitical developments
therein, we think it is scarcely appropriate that
this situation should be treated by the United
Nations as if it were a problem of colonial

The United States is associated with three terri-
tories that are not fully self-governing, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, with a total
indigenous population of less than 100,000.

To the extent that the word "colonialism" means
an imjust relationship continued against the wishes
of the people of the territories in question, a re-
lationship of subjugation, oppression, and exploi-
tation, the term "colonialism" has no application
whatsoever to the situation in these territories.
However, we recognize that, although these terri-
tories possess a large measure of self-government
in the sense that they have their own legislative
bodies freely elected on the basis of universal adult
suffrage, they are not fully self-governing within
the meaning of that term as it is generally used at
the United Nations. We have accordingly re-
ported under article 73 e of the charter on these
three territories as "non-self-governing terri-
tories," even though, I might add, the term is
sometimes resented by the elected leaders of the
territories, who consider that they are self-gov-
erning. It further follows that these territories,
being at least technically non-self-governing, fall
within the scope of Kesolution 1514.

In accordance with our belief in the principle of
self-determination and in accordance with Reso-
lution 1514, 1 am glad to advise this Assembly that
the United States is proceeding to consult with
the appropriate elected councils in Guam, in
American Samoa, and in the Virgin Islands as to
what steps might be taken in each territory, in
the light of its own particular conditions, to deter-
mine the wishes of its people regarding their polit-
ical future. (We are also doing the same in the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, but that
territory is the concern of the Security Council.)

In many dependent areas, as in the U.S. terri-
tories I have mentioned, there are vital and grow-
ing relationships of consultation and partnership
between the administering authority and the indig-
enous leaders. Nothing should be done by the
United Nations to cut across, or interfere with,
these relationships, wliich offer the straightest and
shortest road to true self-determination. Indeed
the effectiveness of that process has been proved by

hundreds of millions of newly independent peoples
in the last 15 years. By the test of history it de-
serves respect and a continued chance to work
without new complications.

Yet there is certainly a most constructive part
for the United Nations to play. A General As-
sembly committee has been suggested, to concern
itself with the progress of the ending of colonial
rule among remaining dependent territories. We
believe its main fimction should be to survey the
situation and to present for the consideration of
the Assembly, and of all the members concerned,
guiding principles of action in this all-important
area. It would consider, for example, some of the
particularly difficult problems which remain, such
as the small islands, enclaves, and territories where
there are sizable minorities. Such a committee,
patterned after the Special Conmiittee of Six,
which dealt with some of the problems of defini-
tions in this field, could well be of genuine value.

Happily the cases where the governing power is
working in good faith with the local peoples to
achieve the aims of chapter XI of the charter are
the great majority of cases of colonial rule today.
At its best, colonial rule is and must be self-liqui-
dating. That is what it has been in the historic
15 years just past, and many delegations present
in this great hall are the living proof of that fact.

Domination Practiced by Moscow and Peiping

Mr. President, I wish it were possible for me to
leave this subject on this happy note. But I feel
it my duty to say something about another kind
of subjugation of foreign peoples which afflicts
humanity in this period of history.

The Soviet Union is never shy about demanding
immediate independence of all colonial territories
from Western control. In fact, it goes further and
demands, in effect, that all contacts between the
emerging nations and the West should be severed,
leaving the new nations cut off from all the
technical and economic support which the Western
industrial nations can and do offer them. This
interesting device would leave the new nations in
the weakest possible position to resist whatever
designs the Soviet Union may have in mind for

Meanwhile a great many people, not only in my
country but in many parts of the world, under-
standably ask : 'What about the 200 million alien
people whom the Soviet Union has subjugated

January 8, 1962


since 1945? Haven't they also the right, in the
words of the historic colonial declaration (Resolu-
tion 1514), to "freely determine their political
status" and to "enjoy complete independence and
freedom" ? Is this subjugation not also a virulent
form of colonialism or, if you prefer, "imperial-

These people want to know why the United
Nations concentrates on forms of Western colo-
nial rule which are fast coming to an end and
gives little or no attention to those much more
stubborn and subtle forms of domination practiced
by the Soviet Union, especially in Eastern Europe,
and by Commimist China in Tibet and elsewhere.
Are not the same principles of self-determination
involved in all these cases? Why not be most
forceful and insistent with those who persist most
stubbornly in injustice ?

We sympathize very deeply with those who ask
this question. The feelings of the United States,
and of the majority of members, on the tragic
problems of Hungary and of Tibet are well known
in the General Assembly and will be made clear
again when those two items are shortly reached on
our agenda. The time will surely come when
justice can be done in peace to those and other
peoples who are held today, against their will,
under the alien rule of Moscow or Peiping.
Their day will come, and the U.N. will have its
part to play in the fullness of time. History has
its own patterns and its own logic.

In this connection it was remarkable to note
the extreme statements which the very able dele-
gate from the Soviet Union felt constrained to
utter in reply to some of the observations on Soviet
colonialism which the distinguished representative
of the United Kingdom made in his recent forth-
right statement in this debate. I could only as-
sume Mr. [J. B.] Godber must have touched on a
raw nerve end. Mr. [S. G.] Lapin's reply, though
short, contained such remarkable assertions as
the following: "The Soviet Union is composed of
free republics which are united by friendship and
the solidarity of interests of its people."

I wonder, just to cite one example among many,
if tlie 900,000—1 repeat, 900,000— Moslem Kasakhs
who mysteriously disappeared from their national
republic between 1920 and 1939 would agree with
Mr. Lapin. Or would the 400,000 Volga Germans,
the 259,000 Crimean Tatars, the 130,000 Kal-
myks — all deported to the East — would they agree
with Mr. Lapin ?

Mr. Lapin also stated, "As for military bases, ,
you know vei-y well indeed that the Soviet Union i
does not have military bases on foreign territory."

Just to take one example, it is a fact that there '
are currently in Hungary in the neighborhood of
50,000 Soviet troops. Now Mr. Lapin's statement
which I quoted to you can lead us to one of two
conclusions. Either the 50,000 Soviet troops are
living and operating from hotels, guest houses,
and country inns, or the Soviet Union does not
consider Hungary a foreign territory. Let each
draw his own conclusions.

In a document * circulated previously in connec-
tion with this item, the Soviet Union chose to di-
rect its main fire against my country, whose de-
pendent territories, including its trust territory,
have a population of less than 200,000 people, and
which is working hard to live up to the charter in
all these matters. I do not wish to impose on the
delegates by answering these absurd charges here.
We shall, nevertheless, shortly circulate a docu-
ment which will set forth some of our views on the
Soviet memorandum."

Dispute Over West New Guinea

I should like to turn now to another matter.
The dispute over the territory of West New Guinea
provides this Assembly with a great challenge and
an imusual opportunity. I shall not attempt to
review the tangled history of this dispute nor pre-
sume to pronounce judgment on the conflicting
claims of the Governments of Indonesia and the
Netherlands. However, hopefully the barren con-
frontation of claims and counterclaims is nearing '
its end. Provided the Assembly acts with judi-
cious realism, this territory may soon cease to be a
focus of international disputation. Indeed, it may
well serve as a model for responsible decoloniza-

My Government regards as imaginative and con-
structive the initiative which the Government of
the Netherlands has taken in proposing its relin-
quislmient of control over West New Guinea, with
a United Nations administration for an interim
period. The basic condition set by the Govern-
ment of the Netherlands is that the inhabitants of

' U.N. (l(>i\ A/48S9.

° For text of U.S. comments on the Soviet memorandum,
see U.S. delegation press release 3S62 dated Nov. 28 or
U.N. doc. A/4985.


Department of State Bulletin

the territory be afforded the right to exercise
freedom of choice witli regard to the ultimate dis-
position of the area. The position of the United
States on the principle of self-determination is
well known, and we perceive no valid reason wliy
an appropriate expression of the will of the people
should be denied the inliabitants of West New

On tlie other hand, while we welcome the gen-
eral nature of the Netherlands proposal, in our
opinion the Netherlands draft resolution ^ repre-
sents completely the point of view of its sponsor
and does not suiBciently recognize the intense In-
donesian interest in the territoiy. We believe that
there is no purpose to be gained by attempting to
ignore, as does the Netherlands draft, the claim of
Indonesia to sovereignty over the territory the
latter calls Irian Barat. The Assembly should,
in our view, not be asked to accept either the Dutch
claim to sovereignty or the Indonesian claim.
Wliatever it does should be without prejudice to
either side. In the light of the dispute that exists
the proper course, in accordance with the United
Nations Charter, would seem to be to assure the
people of the area an opportunity at the proper
time to express their own choice as to their politi-
cal future, under the aegis of the United Nations.

In order to assure this result, we believe that
any resolution adopted by the Assembly should
make perfectly clear that the administration of
the area would be turned over by the Dutch to the
U.N. by a certain date. The conditions for the
transfer would be laid down by the 17th General
Assembly, after receiving the recommendations of
a small commission comprised of disinterested
member states.

We believe that such a U.N. administration,
leading to the expression of choice by the people
of the area, should provide to Indonesia every
reasonable opportimity to pursue its objective of
achieving the integration of West New Guinea
with Indonesia. During the interim period,
Dutch control would have been ended and an im-
partial U.N. administration would be in complete
control. We would assume that under such an
administration Indonesia would have access to
the area.

We do not believe that the proposal of the
delegation of India ' offers a definitive solution to

' U.N. doc. A/L. 354.
' U.N. doc. A/L. 367.

the problem we confront. INIuch as we would like
to see a reconciliation of the views of the Nether-
lands and Indonesia on this matter and much as
we would welcome friendly discussions between
the disputants, we would point out that similar
proposals for simple bilateral negotiations have
been presented here before and rejected. We be-
lieve any resolution on this matter must take into
account the new developments which are repre-
sented by the expressed willingness of the Nether-
lands to relinquish its control over the territoi-y to
the United Nations.

Moreover, m our view, adoption of a simple
appeal to the parties to negotiate would amount to
rejecting, or at least ignoring, the idea that the
people of the area should be given the right of
self-determination. Indeed we note with sorrow
that the draft resolution offered by the Indian
delegation makes no mention of the people of West
New Guinea and it seems to accept the notion that
their political future can, and indeed should, be
settled by others without taking their views into

The right of self-detennination is a basic right
imder the charter and under Kesolution 1514. The
distinguished representative of India, Mr. Krishna
Menon, in effect stated here the other day that he
could not accept the idea of a U.N. commission
since this would be tacit acceptance that the
sovereignty of the area was open to dispute. But
that is precisely the case: Indonesia claims sov-
ereignty, and its claim is supported by a number
of delegations, including India. But the Nether-
lands also claims sovereignty, and its claim is like-
wise supported by a number of delegations. Thus,
this would seem to be a case in which the principle
of self-determination is entirely appropriate and
indeed offers the only practical and just way out
of an impasse which has now continued for more
than a decade.

One final point : We have every reason to hope
and believe that the Indonesian Government can
and will accept the idea of self-determination for
West New Guinea, provided that the administra-
tion of the process is impartial and provided that
Indonesia would have every appropriate access
to the area. We believe that it would clearly be
in Indonesia's interest to accept the prospective
Dutch withdrawal from West New Guinea and
then to pursue Indonesia's objectives through
peaceful means.

January 8, 1962


This is a complex matter which will take time,
patience, and concerted effort by all concerned.

Mr. President, wo in the General Assembly are
privileged to play a part in one of the most creative
historic evolutions of human history: the emer-
gence of new nations from colonial status into full
equality in the world community. That evolution
is far advanced. It is for us to help it, encourage
it, and guide it into peaceful channels. Where the
responsible parties falter or fail in their duties,
we have a duty to press for action. Where
problems are being solved in good faith, we must
respect the work that is being done. And where
all our appeals are met with stubbornness and
defiance, let us stand and work for the right xmtil
the right can prevail in peace.


The General Assembly,

Recalling the Declaration on the granting of inde-
pendence to colonial countries and peoples contained In
its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,

Bearing in mind the purposes and principles of that

Recalling in particular paragraph 5 of the Declaration
providing that :

"Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-
Governing Territories or all other territories which have
not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to
the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or
reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed
will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed
or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete in-
dependence and freedom",

Noting with regret that, with a few exceptions, the pro-
visions contained in the aforementioned paragraph of the
Declaration have not been carried out,

Noting that, contrary to the provisions of paragraph 4
of the Declaration, armed actiini and repressive measures
continue to be taken in certain areas with increasing
rulhlessnoss against dependent peoples, depriving them of
their prerogative to exercise peacefully and freely their
right to complete Independence,

Deeplp concerned that, contrary to the provisions of
paragraph of the Declaration, acts aimed at the partial
or total disruption of national unity and territorial in-
tegrity are still being carried out in certain countries in
the process of decolonization.

Convinced that further delay in the application of the
Declaration is a continuing source of international con-
flict and disharmony, seriously impedes international co-

'U.N. doe. A/KES/1654(XVI), adopted in plenary ses-
sion on Nov. 27 by a vote of 97-0-4.

operation, and is creating an increasingly dangerous situ-
ation in many parts of the world which may threaten!
international peace and security.

Emphasizing that inadequacy of political, economic,
social or educational preparedness should never serve as
a pretext for delaying independence,

1. Solemnly reiterates and reafflrms the objectives and
principles enshrined in the Declaration on the granting
of independence to colonial countries and peoples con-
tained in its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960;

2. Calls upon States concerned to take action without
further delay with a view to the faithful application and
implementation of the Declaration ;

3. Decides to establish a Special Committee of seven-
teen members to be nominated by the President of the
General Assembly at the present session ;

4. Requests the Special Committee to examine the ap-
plication of the Declaration, to make suggestion.s and
recommendations on the progress and extent of the imple-
mentation of the Declaration, and to report to the Gen-
eral Assembly at its seventeenth session ;

5. Directs the Special Committee to carry out it.s task
by employment of all means which it will have at its dis-
posal within the framework of the procedures and modali-
ties which it shall adopt for the proper discharge of its
functions ;

6. Authorizes the Special Committee to meet elsewhere
than at United Nations Headquarters, whenever and
wherever such meetings may be required for the effective
discharge of its functions, in consultation with the ap-
propriate authorities ;

7. Invites the authorities concerned to afford the Spe-
cial Committee their fullest co-operation in carrying out
its tasks ;

8. Requests the Trusteeship Council, the Committee on
Information from Non-Self-Goveming Territories and the
specialized agencies concerned to assist the Special Com-
mittee in its work within their respective fields ;

9. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Spe-
cial Committee with all the facilities and the personnel
necessary for the implementation of the present resolution.

SEATO Research Fellowships, 1962-63

Press release 897 dated December 20

For the sixth consecutive year the Southeast
Asia Treaty Organization is offering a number of
postdoctoral research fellowships to established
scholars of the member states.

The object of the SEATO fellowship program
is to encourage study and research of such social,
economic, political, cultural, scientific, and educa-
tional problems as give insight into the present
needs and future development of the southejist
Asia and southwest Pacific areas.

Grants are normally for a period of 4 to 10
months and include a monthlv allowance of $400


Department of State Bulletin

and air travel to and from the countries of re-
search. Candidates are selected on the basis of
special aptitude and experience for carrying out
a major research project. Academic qualifica-
tions, professional experience beyond graduate
llevel, and published material are taken into

The competition for the awards for the 1962-63
jacademic year is now open. American citizens
may apply to the Committee on International Ex-
cliange of Persons, Conference Board of Associ-
ated Research Councils, 2101 Constitution Avenue,
Washington 25, D.C. American candidates for

Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 21 of 101)