pendent State has derived or derives from the property, rights and interests in question. 2. Any agreement concluded between the predecessor and the newly independent State for the implementation of the principles contained in the preceding paragraph shall pay due regard to the newly independent State's permanent sovereignty over its natural weaith and resources in accordance with international law. Par. 68 of the Commission's commentary on art. 22 is reproduced below from pp. 224-225 of the Report: (68) Certain members of the Commission were unable to support the text of article 22 and expressed reservations and doubts thereon, and one member expressed reservations on certain paragraphs of the commentary to this article as well. One member proposed an alternative text for the article (A/CN.4/ L.257) which received a measure of support from some members. The view was expressed that it was preferable, as a matter of principle, to admit the possibility that a State debt of the predecessor State might pass to the successor State in some way other than by an agreement between the two States, even though in State practice such passage was normally effected by agreement. Such a passing other than by agreement would still, it was said, be severely limited in much the same manner as that spelled out in paragraph 1 of the adopted text concerning the conditions for the conclusion of an agreément, and would indeed provide an incentive for the conclusion of agreements between predecessor and successor States. Concerning the question of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, preference was expressed for the terminology found in the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights. It was further believed that the text of article 22 as adopted could have the effect of discouraging loans to the remaining colonial territories. Another view expressed was that article 22 should have stated a certain number of legal rules: the basic principle of the non-passage of State debts of the predecessor State to the successor State and an exception to that rule based on equity, however limited. The provisions of present paragraph 2 would then provide the procedures to be applied in the case of difficulties, namely by agreement. According to that point of view, the article's major defects were that it did not allow for the slightest exception to the basic rule and that it mixed questions of principle with questions relating to the settlement of disputes, according a predominant place to the latter. [Footnotes omitted.] For further information concerning the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights, see post, ch. 3, § 6, pp. 170-171. Stephen M. Schwebel, Deputy Legal Adviser of the Dept. of State, was the U.S. member of the International Law Commission at its 29th session. For further information concerning art. 22 of the proposed draft convention on state succession, see post, Ch. 2, § 4G, pp. 54-56. For other portions of Mr. Rosenstock's statement, see post, Ch. 2, § 4G, pp. 53–54 and Ch. 9, § 1, pp. 672–674. 83 Djibouti Diplomatic Relations and Recognition Recognition of States On June 27, 1977, President Carter sent a letter to Hassan Gouled Aptidon, President of the Republic of Djibouti, extending recognition to the Republic. The following is the text of President Carter's letter: The American people join me in sending best wishes to you and to the people of the Republic of Djibouti. I am pleased to inform you that as Djibouti attains independence the United States Gov ernment extends its recognition. It is our intention, with your agreement, that diplomatic relations be established between our countries on this date. We believe that a friendly and productive relationship will develop between the United States and Djibouti, and that our mutual concern for human dignity, economic well-being and individual freedom will find expression in close cooperation and friendship. The Government and people of the United States fully share your aspirations for the progress and welfare of the people of Djibouti and look forward to working with your country in our common effort to secure peace and prosperity for all mankind. I am confident that the years to come will witness a strengthening of our friendship. Dept. of State File No. P77 0178-1972. On June 27, 1977, the U.S. Consulate General to the former French Territory of Afars and Issas became the U.S. Embassy, Republic of Djibouti. Walter S. Clarke became Chargé d'Affaires. Dept. of State File No. P77 0177-279. Comoro Islands On August 15, 1977, the United States recognized the Republic of the Comoros, and the United States and the Comorian Republic issued the following communique establishing relations between the two governments: The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of the Comoros guided by the desires of their peoples to establish and develop relations of friendship and cooperation based on the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have decided to establish diplomatic relations as of August 15, 1977. 76 Dept. of State Bulletin 382 (1977). On August 16, 1977, U.S. Chargé d'Affaires ad interim in Antananarivo, Madagascar, Robert S. Barrett IV, personally delivered at Moroni, Comoro Islands, the following letter dated July 21, 1977, from President Carter to Comorian Chief of State Ali Soilih: The American people join me in sending best wishes to you and to the people of the Republic of the Comoro Islands. I am pleased to inform you that the United States extends recognition to the Republic of the Comoro Islands. It is our hope, with your agreement, that diplomatic relations will soon be established between our two countries. We have followed with interest the process of reorganization recently undergone by the Government of the Comoro Islands to adapt the administration to the needs and resources of the country and to pave the way for meaningful economic development and effective enhancement of the well-being of its people. I look forward to the opportunity for our two nations to work together in the cause of peace, freedom, and the welfare of mankind in accordance with the principles of the U.N. Charter. U.S. Embassy Antananarivo's telegram 1501 (Aug. 19, 1977) to Dept. of State; Dept. of State File Nos. P77 0152-2241 and D77 0300-651. Mr. Barrett also presented on August 16, 1977, the following letter of accreditation from Secretary Vance to Comorian Foreign Minister Mouzawoir Abdallah : I have the honor to inform you that Robert S. Barrett IV, Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the United States of America at Antananarivo, has been assigned to serve concurrently as Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the United States of America to the Republic of the Comoros. I accordingly hereby accredit Mr. Barrett in the foregoing capacity and ask that you give credence to what he shall say on the part of the Government of the United States. Mr. Barrett has been charged to conduct the affairs of this office in a manner that will further strengthen the friendship between the United States of America and the Republic of the Comoros. Therefore, I entrust him to your confidence. Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Dept. of State File No. P77 0152-2240. General Diplomatic Relations; Recognition and In response to a question during his press conference of June 13, 1977, President Carter listed as a goal of his Administration the establishment of normal friendly relations with the 14 nations which did not have diplomatic relations with the United States when he took office: We don't want to be in a position that once a country is not friendly to us, and once they are completely within the influence of the Soviet Union they should forever be in that status. And as I've already indicated, and named several countries— Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, even more controversial nations like Vietnam, Cuba-I want to move as best I can to re-establish normal friendly relationships with those countries. In some instances, the obstacles are quite severe, as in the case of Cuba and perhaps Vietnam. But I think this is what our Government ought to do. And I would like to have a situation when I go out of office that all the nations in the world have diplomatic relationships with us. We now have 14 who don't, and I've been pursuing this aggressively. 13 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 880 (June 20, 1977). The 14 countries with which the United States did not have such diplomatic relations werc Albania, Angola, Cambodia, the People's Republic of China, the Comoros Islands, the People's Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, North Korea, Mongolia, Southern Rhodesia, Vietnam, and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. The New York Times, June 14, 1977, p. 12. President Carter first spoke of the normalization of U.S. "relationships with all states which are ready to work with us in promoting global progress and global peace" in his address to representatives to the United Nations in New York on Mar. 17, 1977. 76 Dept. of State Bulletin 330 (1977). Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher gave an address at Occidental College in Los Angeles, California, on June 11, 1977, concerning the normalization of U.S. relations with other governments. He summarized in part the current policy of the Carter Administration on establishing diplomatic relations with other governments. Portions of his address follow: We live in an interdependent world. And in one way or another we find our fate and our futures tied increasingly to those of other peoples. If we cannot communicate easily with them, we cannot effectively promote our own interests or build new bonds of common interest. This brings me to my central point: We believe that diplomatic relations help us to discharge our basic duty to protect the interests of our government and our citizens. By keeping open a channel of communication with other countries, we best serve our longrange objective of encouraging the growth of democratic institutions. We maintain diplomatic relations with many governments of which we do not necessarily approve. The reality is that, in this day and age, coups and other unscheduled changes of government are not exceptional developments. Withholding diplomatic relations from these regimes after they have obtained effective control penalizes us. It means we forsake much of the chance to influence the attitudes and conduct of a new regime. Without relations we forfeit opportunities to transmit our values and communicate our policies. Isolation may well bring out the worst in the new government. For the same reasons, we eschew withdrawal of diplomatic relations except in rare instances-for example the outbreak of war or ovents which make it physically impossible to maintain a diplomatic presence in another capital. If we continue to withhold diplomatic relations, this hesitancy invites confusion and can become the center of a touchy political issue. Eventual establishment of diplomatic relations then comes wrongly to be considered as a form of approval. In short, it means that someday, when we seek to normalize relations, we will be painting on a dirty canvas. Indeed, efforts to restore relations once broken often encounter special difficulties. Inevitably, constituencies in both countries develop an emotional investment in the absence of relations. Financial claims and counter-claims pile up, and there is a backlog of issues which might have been resolved if normal relations had existed. Faced with this legacy of problems, the process of restoring relations must be approached with great care and deliberation. In sum, we believe normal diplomatic relations are an asset to promote other objectives, an asset we cannot deny ourselves without incurring substantial cost. As Churchill put it: "When relations are most difficult, that is the time diplomacy is most needed." There is no certainty that two nations will be able to resolve their disputes by talking about them. But without effective communications, without some form of dialogue, the odds are high that there will be no progress at all. This is true, as each of you knows, among individuals. So it is among nations, as well. Dept. of State Press Release 269 (June 10, 1977). The October 10, 1977, edition of the Department of State Bulletin contained the following article, entitled "Diplomatic Recognition," outlining differing criteria used by the United States for recognizing foreign governments from 1792 to the present and summarizing the status of relations between the United States and 11 governments with which the United States did not maintain relations in 1977: A Foreign Relations Outline* Recently President Carter expressed his desire that the United States work toward establishment and maintenance of normal diplomatic relations with the governments of all states. The United States now has diplomatic relations with over 130 governments of states. It has no diplomatic relations, or is in the process of normalizing relations, with 11 other governments of entities widely recognized as states. (We do not recognize Southern Rhodesia as an independent state, in accordance with U.N. decisions and resolutions.) In a few cases, the United States has withheld recognition from, or has suspended relations with, another government; in other cases, governments have suspended relations with us. Under our constitutional system, recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations are Presidential prerogatives. Establishing and maintaining diplomatic relations with governments, however, is not a unilateral process; both states must agree that it serves their national interests. The United States maintains relations with other governments because it helps us achieve our basic foreign policy objectives: By *Based on a Department of State publication in the GIST series, released August 1977. This outline is designed to be a quick reference aid on U.S. foreign relations. It is not intended as a comprehensive U.S. policy statement. |