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

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) online

. (page 20 of 90)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 20 of 90)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

situation, and our nation had to rid itself
of this false and hateful doctrine at great
cost. It should not be necessary for me to
emphasize that what could not be accepted by
the United States in the mid-19th century
can surely not be accepted by the interna-
tional community in the late 20th century.

Any person familiar with recent history
would have to be blind and deaf not to per-
ceive the danger in the course of action of
the Smith regime. Some will nevertheless ask
why is it proper, for example, to impose
mandatory sanctions in this case and not in

The answer to this, in our judgment, lies
in the fact that there are a number of unique
elements in the Southern Rhodesian situa-
tion. Here we have witnessed an illegal sei-
zure of power by a minority bent on perpet-
uating the political subjugation of the vast
majority. That act itself is bound to create a
dangerous and inflammatory situation. More-
over, Southern Rhodesia, as I have said, is a
territory whose population is subject to pro-
tection under chapter XI of the charter,
which, among other things, calls for the de-
velopment of self-government to take account
of the political aspiration of the peoples.
What we have seen in Rhodesia under the
Smith regime has been precisely the con-

All of this has happened, I would empha-
size, against the express will of the sovereign
authority for that territory, the United King-
dom. Regrettably, the efl!"ort of the United
Kingdom to negotiate a settlement on the
basis of the charter in recent days has failed.
Now the United Kingdom comes to this
Council asking for a Council decision under
article 41 to apply mandatory sanctions in
order to cope with the situation which has

None of us should be surprised by this
request. The Security Council has already
found in previous sessions, particularly on

JANUARY 9, 1967


November 20, 1965, that the continuance in
time of such a situation was likely to lead to
a threat to peace.' This situation has not only
continued; since negotiations have failed, it
has obviously grown more acute, especially
since the rejection by the Smith regime of
the recent direct effoi-t of the British Prime
Minister to find an honorable solution.

Situation Not Static But Deteriorating

We thus have a situation in a colony where
a small minority seeks to subjugate the ma-
jority — we have an effort by a small minor-
ity to suppress the political rights of a ma-
jority, to extend into a non-self-governing
territory practices of racial discrimination
which have been found abhorrent by the
United Nations — and where the sovereign
authority for the territory voluntarily comes
to the United Nations and asks it to take
measures which will permit the restoration
of the full rights of the people of Southern
Rhodesia under the United Nations Charter.

What we have here, in short, is not a static
but a deteriorating situation in which the
danger to peace is obviously growing and to
which the Council must address itself.

Resolute and prompt action by the Secu-
rity Council to deal with this problem in a
peaceful but effective way will lessen the
danger of more drastic developments, from
whatever quarter they may threaten to come.

I am well aware that, whereas some criti-
cize the proposed action as too strong, others
complain that it is too mild to achieve its
purpose. These latter critics point out that
the measures which the Security Council has
recommended in the past have not proved
sufficient to rectify the situation.

Whatever views there may be about the
efficacy of these economic measures already
taken, there is a key difference between them
and what is now proposed.

' For statements made by Ambassador Goldberg on
Nov. 12 and Nov. 20, 1965, and Apr. 9, 1966, and
texts of resolutions adopted on those dates, see
Bulletin of Dec. 6, 1965, p. 912, and May 2, 1966,
p. 713.

Unlike the voluntary sanctions which the
Council approved a year ago, those now re-
quested are mandatory. Under article 25 of
the charter all members are obliged to carry
them out — and indeed all nonmembers are
also called upon to do so in the resolution, a&
the organization is authorized to insure by
virtue of article 2, paragraph 6, of the char-
ter. If any member or nonmember should
substantially fail to carry out the Council's
decision, this failure would be a violation of
charter provisions and obligations.

It has been asserted also that the League
of Nations failed in its attempt to impose
effective economic sanctions. But surely this
fact should not discourage us. The United
Nations is different from the League of Na-
tions not only in the breadth of its member-
ship but in the fact that it has already done
successfully many things which the League
found impossible to do. While it is apparent
that success in the present enterprise cannot
be guaranteed in advance, the probabilities
of success will be greatest if all of us in good
faith bend our efforts to assure its success —
as indeed we are obligated to do.

For my own country, I wish to say cate-
gorically that if the Council decides to take
the action pursuant to article 41, which we
anticipate, the United States will apply the
full force of our law to implementing this
decision in accordance with the authority es-
tablished under the United Nations Partici-
pation Act of 1945.

Mr. President, the Rhodesian situation
presents a grave practical problem with
great moral implications. It is sometimes
said that moral considerations are irrelevant
in the practical affairs of nations. But my
Government takes the contrary view, and so
does the United Nations Charter. The law of
the charter is based on many moral consider-
ations. The day that law is held to be irrele-
vant, or to be available to some members and
not available to others, will be a tragic day
for world peace.

If, however, we are to act effectively for
the charter's principles, we must practice the



art of the possible. We must decide upon
those measures which we can implement —
and to implement thoroughly those measures
on which we have decided. The greater the
unanimity of the Council in making its deci-
sion, the greater will be our assurance of
worldwide support for it.

It is an unhappy fact that some situations
exist in the world in which the Council is
unable to act effectively. Here is a situation
in which we can act. If every state does its
duty in the work that now lies before us, our
action will not only exert a profound effect in
Salisbury; it will do much to build respect
for the United Nations as a force for peace
and justice in Africa and throughout the

It is for all these reasons that the United
States supports the course of action proposed
by the United Kingdom.


The Security Council,

Reaffirming its resolutions 216 (1965) of 12 No-
vember 1965, 217 (1965) of 20 November 1965 and
221 (1966) of 9 April 1966, and in particular its
appeal to all States to do their utmost in order to
break off economic relations with Southern Rhodesia,

Deeply concerned that the Council's efforts so far
and the measures taken by the administering Power
have failed to bring the rebellion in Southern Rho-
desia to an end.

Reaffirming that to the extent not superseded in
this resolution, the measures provided for in reso-
lution 217 (1965) of 20 November 1965, as well as
those initiated by Member States in implementation
of that resolution, shall continue in effect.

Acting in accordance with Articles 39 and 41 of
the United Nations Charter,

1. Determines that the present situation in South-
ern Rhodesia constitutes a threat to international
peace and security;

2. Decides that all States Members of the United
Nations shall prevent:

(a) the import into their territories of asbestos,
iron ore, chrome, pig-iron, sugar, tobacco, copper.

*U.N. doc. S/RES/232 and Corr. 1 (1966) (S/
7621/Rev. 1, as amended) ; adopted by the Council on
Dec. 16, 1966, by a vote of 11 (U.S.) to 0, with 4 ab-
stentions (Bulgaria, France, Mali, and U.S.S.R.).

JANUARY 9, 1967

meat and meat products and hides, skins and leather
originating in Southern Rhodesia and exported
therefrom after the date of this resolution;

(6) any activities by their nationals or in their
territories which promote or are calculated to pro-
mote the export of these commodities from Southern
Rhodesia and any dealings by their nationals or in
their territories in any of these commodities origi-
nating in Southern Rhodesia and exported there-
from after the date of this resolution, including in
particular any transfer of funds to Southern Rho-
desia for the purposes of such activities or dealings;

(c) shipment in vessels or aircraft of their regis-
tration of any of these commodities originating in
Southern Rhodesia and exported therefrom after the
date of this resolution ;

(d) any activities by their nationals or in their
territories which promote or are calculated to pro-
mote the sale or shipment to Southern Rhodesia of
arms, ammunition of all types, military aircraft,
military vehicles, and equipment and materials for
the manufacture and maintenance of arms and am-
munition in Southern Rhodesia;

(e) any activities by their nationals or in their
territories which promote or are calculated to pro-
mote the supply to Southern Rhodesia of all other
aircraft and motor vehicles and of equipment and
materials for the manufacture, assembly or main-
tenance of aircraft and motor vehicles in Southern
Rhodesia: the shipment in vessels and aircraft of
their registration of any such goods destined for
Southern Rhodesia: and any activities by their na-
tionals or in their territories which promote or are
calculated to promote the manufacture or assembly
of aircraft or motor vehicles in Southern Rhodesia;

(/) participation in their territories or territories
under their administration or in land or air trans-
port facilities or by their nationals or vessels of
their registration in the supply of oil or oil products
to Southern Rhodesia;

notwithstanding any contracts entered into or
licenses granted before the date of this resolution;

3. Reminds Member States that the failure or re-
fusal by any of them to implement the present reso-
lution shall constitute a violation of Article 25 of
the Charter;

4. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the people
of Southern Rhodesia to freedom and independence
in accordance with the Declaration on the Granting
of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
contained in General Assembly resolution 1514
(XV) ; and recognizes the legitimacy of their strug-
gle to secure the enjoyment of their rights as set
forth in the Charter of the United Nations;

5. Calls upon all States not to render financial or
other economic aid to the illegal racist regime in
Southern Rhodesia;

6. Calls upon all States Members of the United


Nations to carry out this decision of the Security
Council in accordance with Article 25 of the United
Nations Charter;

7. Urges, having regard to the principles stated
in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, States
not Members of the United Nations to act in accord-
ance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the pres-
ent resolution;

8. Calls upon States Members of the United Na-
tions or of the specialized agencies to report to the

Secretary-General the measures each has taken in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the
present resolution ;

9. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the
Council on the progress of the implementation of
the present resolution, the first report to be submit-
ted not later than 1 March 1967;

10. Decides to keep this item on its agenda for
further action as appropriate in the light of develop-

U.N. General Assembly Endorses Outer Space Treaty

Following are statements made in Commit-
tee I (Political and Security) and in plenary
session by Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Repre-
sentative to the General Assembly, together
with the text of a resolution adopted by the
Assembly on December 19.


U.S. delegation press release 5034

The treaty on outer space which now lies
before this committee is an achievement in
which all of us here, I am sure, find cause for
great satisfaction and great hope.' We are
happy to be a cosponsor of the resolution
commending this treaty. We hope and trust
that it will command the virtually unanimous
support of the committee and the General
Assembly. We share the wish that the treaty
will be opened for signature very soon and
will gain the widest possible adherence.

I should like to take this occasion to pay
tribute to our distinguished colleague who
opened this debate. Judge Manfred Lachs
of Poland. He has shown admirable skill and

' For a statement made by President Johnson on
Dec. 8 and text of the Treaty on Principles Gov-
erning the Activities of States in the Exploration
and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and
Other Celestial Bodies, see Bulletin of Dec. 26,
1966, p. 952.


impartiality in his role as chairman of the
Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the
Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, within whose
framework this treaty was negotiated in
Geneva last July and more recently here in
New York. Much of the credit for the success
of our negotiations is due to him. We are
also greatly indebted to Ambassador Kurt
Waldheim of Austria, the chairman of the
parent Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space, who played an outstanding role
in bringing this project to fruition. There is
no need for me to repeat what Professor
Lachs has just now so ably explained about
the history and procedural status of this
treaty. But, speaking for the United States,
which takes a very great interest in the ex-
ploration of outer space, and in recognition
of all that this implies for the peace of the
world, I do wish to make some general obser-

We of the United States regard this treaty
as an important step toward peace. We do
not wish to exaggerate its significance, but
neither do we underrate it. It will greatly re-
duce the danger of international conflict and
promote the prospects of international coop-
eration for the common interest in the newest
and most unfamiliar of all realms of human
activity, a realm in which the actions of na-
tions are sure to be fateful for good or ill.

The greatest danger facing us in outer


space comes not from the physical environ-
ment, however cold and hostile it may be, but
from our own human nature and from the
discords that trouble our relationship here
on earth. Therefore, as we stand on the
threshold of the space age, our first respon-
sibility as governments is clear: We must
make sure that man's earthly conflicts will
not be carried into outer space.

We know that not all these conflicts are
easily or quickly ended. But it has for years
been the deep desire and hope of many coun-
tries, my own included, that the danger which
they pose might be reduced; that the exten-
sion of them into new realms might be pre-
vented; and that this might be achieved in
ways which would advance the interests of
all nations.

This treaty responds to that desire and
hope. It thus takes its place in a historic
progression: First was the Antarctic Treaty
of 1959, reserving that large area of the
world for exclusively peaceful activity; sec-
ond was the limited test ban treaty of 1963;
and third is the treaty which now lies before
this committee.

We hope and believe this series of peace-
building agreements will continue to grow.
Nothing would make us happier than if the
treaty against the proliferation of nuclear
weapons should soon be added as the fourth
item on this historic list.

Thus step by step, we may manage to re-
lieve our fellow man of the increasingly
heavy burden of conflict and armaments and
danger he has borne for so long. And, step
by step, we may also advance the rule of law
into further areas of the relations between

Record of the Negotiations

In this great endeavor we can take much
encouragement from the record of the nego-
tiations on this treaty, which took place in
the Legal Subcommittee, beginning last July
12 in Geneva, and were completed here in
New York. These negotiations were remark-
able for their speed and for the businesslike
and reasonable attitude of all concerned.

In such a successful negotiation no party

gains all that it wanted, but no party's major
interests are injured, and every party gains
something as the areas of common interest
are discovered and defined. It was in this
spirit of reasonable compromise that the
negotiators reached agreement on a number
of points of difference, not only between the
two principal space powers but also between
them and the other powers. The result is a
treaty which reflects a very fair balance of
interests and obligations from the standpoint
of all concerned, including the countries
which as yet have little or no space program
of their own.

The aim of the negotiators of this treaty
was riot to provide in detail for every con-
tingency that might arise in the exploration
and use of outer space, many of which are
unforeseeable, but rather to establish a set
of basic principles. The treaty's provisions
are purposely broad. But they are provisions
which should be welcomed by the United Na-
tions and particularly by the General As-
sembly, for a great many of them derive
from the recommendations which the Assem-
bly made in two of its important resolutions
of 1963: the Declaration of Legal Principles
Governing Activities in Outer Space,^ and
the "no bombs in orbit" resolution.^ More-
over, the treaty responds to some of the most
important concerns assigned to the General
Assembly by the charter: disarmament and
the regulation of armaments; international
cooperation in the political and other fields;
and, by no means least in importance, the
progressive development of international law.
Indeed, one of the most important prin-
ciples in the treaty is that contained in article
III, which binds all parties to carry on their
activities in outer space "in accordance with
international law, including the Charter of
the United Nations." As man steps into the
void of outer space, he will depend for his
survival not only on his amazing technology
but also on this other gift which is no less
precious: the rule of law among nations.
I shall not detain the committee with a full

' For text, see ibid., Dec. 30, 1963, p. 1012.
' For text, see ibid., Nov. 11, 1963, p. 7.54.

JANUARY 9, 1967


discussion of the treaty's provisions. But I do
wish to comment both on its arms control
provisions and on those relating to peaceful

Arms Control Provisions

The United States view of the significance
of the treaty's provisions on arms control
was summed up by President Johnson in his
statement a week ago, when he welcomed
this treaty as "the most important arms con-
trol development since the limited test ban
treaty of 1963." The substance of the arms
control provisions is in article IV. This arti-
cle restricts military activities in two ways:

First, it contains an undertaking not to
place in orbit around the earth, install on the
moon or any other celestial body, or other-
wise station in outer space, nuclear or any
other weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it limits the use of the moon and
other celestial bodies exclusively to peaceful
purposes and expressly prohibits their use
for establishing military bases, installations
or fortifications, testing weapons of any kind,
or conducting military maneuvers.

Quite as important as these arms control
provisions are the means available for assur-
ing each party that the others are living up
to them. I wish to call attention particularly
to articles I, II, and XII. The principle used
is similar to that embodied in the Antarctic
Treaty of 1959; namely, free access by all
parties to one another's installations.

This principle finds expression first in arti-
cle I, which provides that "there shall be free
access to all areas of celestial bodies." It is
reinforced by the prohibition in article II
against national appropriation of outer
space or of celestial bodies. And it is further
reinforced as regards celes.tial bodies by arti-
cle XII, under which "All stations, installa-
tions, equipment and space vehicles on the
moon and other celestial bodies shall be open
to representatives of other States Parties to
the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity."

The words "on a basis of reciprocity" in
article XII do not confer, or imply the ex-
istence of, any right or power to veto pro-

posed visits to other countries' facilities on a
celestial body. As I said on this point in the
Legal Subcommittee in Geneva last August

A veto is not compatible with the idea of reci-
procity and reciprocal rights. If there is a veto,
there are no meaningrful rights; without the exist-
ence of rights there can be no reciprocity.

The meaning of the words "on the basis of
reciprocity" in article XII is in fact the mean-
ing which common sense would dictate — and
which was fully accepted by all the members
of the Legal Subcommittee in Geneva;
namely, that representatives of a state party
to the treaty conducting activities on celestial
bodies will have a right of access to the sta-
tions, installations, equipment, and space
vehicles of another state party on a celestial
body, regardless of whether the second state
has ever claimed, or has ever exercised, a
right of access itself. The fact that the second
state may not have asserted such a right, or
may not have exercised it, in no way impairs
the first state's right to access. However, if
the first state has denied access to repre-
sentatives of the second state, then the latter
is not required, on the principle of reciproci-
ty, to grant access to representatives of the
first state. Indeed, the same logical result
would follow whether or not this treaty pro-
vision contained any express mention of reci-

Moreover, any denial of access to facilities
contemplated in this article would entitle the
other party to exercise such other remedies
as it would have under international law.

In my statement of August 3 to the sub-
committee, I made clear that the United
States delegation was prepared to agree to
inclusion of the words "on a basis of
reciprocity" if the understanding I have just
outlined, and have just repeated here, Mr.
Chairman, was generally shared — and, in
particular, was shared by the Soviet Union —
and if the remaining provisions in the article
were consistent with the idea of reciprocity
and meaningful treaty rights. I stated ex-
plicitly that the veto clause was not con-
sistent and not acceptable. Nor does the re-

* Ibid., Aug. 29, 1966, p. 321.



quirement of advance notice of a projected
visit suggest any veto right or power. The
United States accepted the advance notice
provision on the suggestion of our friends
from Japan, who pointed out at an early date
that concern for the safety of our astronauts
and the integrity of our facilities on celestial
bodies requires that a visitor be asked to give
reasonable advance notice of his intended
visit. The restricted purpose of this notice
requirement is expressly stated in article XII
to be "in order that appropriate consultations
may be held and that maximum precautions
may be taken to assure safety and to avoid
interference with normal operations in the
facility to be visited." There is no veto.

Peaceful Cooperation Provisions

Now I turn to the more affirmative pro-
visions of the treaty — those which lay down
some basic ground rules for peaceful coopera-
tion among nations in the exploration and use
of outer space.

The keynote is struck in the very first
operative words of the treaty, in article I:

The exploration and use of outer space, including
the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried
out for the benefit and in the interests of all coun-
tries, irrespective of their degree of economic or
scientific development, and shall be the province of
all mankind.

The same article goes on to make clear that
the exploration and use of outer space shall
be the right of all states without any dis-
crimination and on a basis of equality. This
and other provisions, particularly that which

Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 20 of 90)