in connection with the problem and would continue to keep the Security Council informed. As president of the Security Council, the United States representative said he was instructed to state "that my Government thinks this subject should be discussed by the Security Council at an early date." He asked for an expression by other representatives as to when they desired to take up the question of Ambon. No other member indicated that it wished the Council to take up the matter. The Republic of Indonesia completed its military action and quelled the insurrection during November. There still remained at issue between the Netherlands and Indonesia the question of the future status of Netherlands New Guinea. At The Hague in December 1949 the parties had agreed to settle this question within a year. During December 1950 a conference of Netherlands and Indonesian officials met at The Hague to try to settle the problem. The Republic of Indonesia proposed that the Netherlands should transfer sovereignty from Netherlands New Guinea to Indonesia and that supplementary agreements be worked out guaranteeing Netherlands interests in New Guinea. The Netherlands rejected these proposals, saying they did not feel that such proposals were to the best interests of the peaceful development of New Guinea and that when the people of that area had reached a sufficient stage of advancement they could by plebiscite, under the joint supervision of Indonesia and the Netherlands, choose for themselves whether they were to become a part of the Republic of Indonesia or to stay under Netherlands sovereignty. In addition the Netherlands proposed the creation of a New Guinea council on which both governments would be represented and to which the Netherlands would make annual reports. The Council was further to have authority to make policy decisions regarding New Guinea. This proposal was not acceptable to Indonesia. The Netherlands Government then made a second proposal under which the Netherlands would maintain its administration in New Guinea but would transfer sovereignty over Netherlands New Guinea to the Netherlands-Indonesian Union. The Indonesian Delegation was unable to accept this proposal. The Netherlands Delegation made a further suggestion, namely, that the negotiations be continued in the presence of the United Nations Commission for Indonesia or of some other agency that would be able to use its good offices in behalf of the parties. The Indonesian Delegation stated that its instructions did not permit it to express any opinion on this latter suggestion. 941458-51-8 95 7. Treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa At the request of the Government of India the General Assembly during 1950 considered, for the fourth time, the matter of the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa. In the Assembly's Ad Hoc Political Committee, India contended that persons of Indian nationality or descent in South Africa suffer discrimination and deprivation of fundamental rights and that the Union of South Africa had unilaterally repudiated agreements previously made with India in regard to the treatment of these people, thus giving rise to a situation which impairs the friendly relations between the two countries. Further, although the parties had carried on negotiations looking toward the holding of a round-table conference as recommended by the third session of the General Assembly in 1948 and had even agreed on items to be included on the agenda of this conference, the Union of South Africa had rendered these negotiations fruitless through the adoption by its Parliament in the spring of 1950 of new and, in India's opinion, further discriminatory legislation entitled the Group Areas Act. For this reason India had considered it useless to continue negotiations for the round-table conference and had once more placed the question before the Assembly. The Union of South Africa maintained that it had not violated binding international agreements or any Charter obligations in connection with its treatment of Indian minorities and that its legislative and other measures of segregation were not repressive but precautionary. Further, it contended that this was a domestic question, with which the General Assembly had no competence to deal. However, it expressed its willingness to proceed with the round-table conference, which, it pointed out, could be held before the Group Areas Act would be fully implemented. A joint draft resolution was submitted by India, together with Burma, Indonesia, and Iraq, expressing the opinion that the Group Areas Act of the Union of South Africa contravened the purposes and principles of the Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights and had prejudiced the Assembly's recommendation of May 14, 1949, inviting the Governments of India, Pakistan, and South Africa to enter into discussions at a round-table conference. This draft was later withdrawn. A draft resolution submitted by Brazil, Bolivia, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden recommended that the governments concerned proceed to hold a round-table conference on the basis of their agreed agenda and made provision for assistance to them in carrying through appropriate negotiations in the event that they failed to reach agreement within a reasonable time. It also called on the governments concerned to refrain from taking any steps which would prejudice the success of their negotiations. Several major amendments to this draft resolution were proposed. One of these, by Cuba, stated that the policy of racial segregation was necessarily based on the doctrine of racial discrimination. Another, by Ecuador, Mexico, the Philippines, and Uruguay, called upon the Union of South Africa to desist from implementation or enforcement of the provisions of the Group Areas Act pending the conclusion of negotiations. It further provided for the inclusion of this item in the agenda of the next regular session of the General Assembly. A third, submitted by Iraq and the Dominican Republic, provided that a commission of three members be appointed to assist the parties in the event that they failed to reach agreement at the round-table conference. The Committee adopted the resolution with these amendments, by 26 votes to 6 with 24 abstentions. The General Assembly, in turn, adopted the same text on December 2, 1950, by 33 votes to 6, with 21 abstentions. In the preliminary vote by paragraphs in the Assembly, the United States abstained on the paragraph describing policies of racial segregation as necessarily based on racial discrimination. It voted against the section calling upon the Union of South Africa to refrain from implementation of the Group Areas Act, on the ground that it would hamper rather than help negotiations between the parties. In the final vote on the resolution as a whole the United States voted affirmatively. As finally adopted the resolution in its main terms calls upon the Governments of India, Pakistan, and the Union of South Africa to proceed with the holding of a round-table conference on the basis of their previously agreed agenda. It recommends that, in the event of failure to hold the conference before April 1951 or to reach agreement within a reasonable time, a commission of three be appointed to assist the parties in their negotiations. It calls upon the governments concerned to refrain from taking any steps which would prejudice the success of their negotiations; in particular, it calls upon the Union of South Africa not to implement or enforce any of the provisions of the Group Areas Act pending conclusion of the negotiations. Finally, it places the item on the agenda of the next regular session of the Assembly. 8. Relations of Members of the United Nations With Spain At the beginning of 1950 a General Assembly resolution concerning relations of U.N. members with Spain, adopted on December 12, 1946, was still in force. Two paragraphs recommended, first, that all member states withdraw their ambassadors and ministers plenipotentiary from Madrid; second, that Spain be barred from participation in specialized agencies and other technical activities under the United Nations so long as the Franco regime remained. In a letter to Senator Connally of January 18, 1950, Secretary Acheson stated that the United States would be ready, in the General Assembly, to vote for the repeal of these provisions. He pointed out that the United States had long questioned the wisdom and efficacy of these recommendations; had abstained from voting on the resolution in the Political Committee; and had voted for it in the plenary assembly only "in the interest of harmony and of obtaining the closest possible approach to unanimity. Experience since that time had, he said, confirmed our doubts about these recommendations; the resolution had failed in its intended purpose and had even strengthened the position of the Franco regime. He pointed out that the return of a chief of mission to Madrid would not signify approval of the regime in Spain, as is shown by the continuance of our normal diplomatic representatives in Soviet countries, where this is possible; finally, the exclusion of Spain from technical U.N. activities reduced the effectiveness of these activities. The Dominican Republic on August 7, 1950, requested that the item be included in the agenda of the fifth session of the General Assembly; Peru made a similar request on August 18. A group of eight states-Bolivia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and Peru-jointly introduced a draft resolution. Several members of the group then withdrew individual draft resolutions which had been submitted. The joint draft noted, in its preamble, that the establishment of diplomatic relations and the exchange of ambassadors and ministers with a government does not imply any judgment on the domestic policy of that government and that, since the specialized agencies are technical and largely nonpolitical in character and have been established to benefit the people of all nations, they should be free to decide their membership for themselves. The operative part of the resolution simply revoked the recommendation for the withdrawal of ambassadors and ministers from Madrid and the recommendations to bar Spain from membership in specialized agencies. It did not affect the condemnatory sections of the preamble of the 1946 resolution or a provision which, as stated in 1947, expressed the confidence of the General Assembly that the Security Council would exercise its responsibilities under the Charter as soon as it considered that the situation in Spain so required. Nor did it affect the earlier resolutions barring Spain from U.N. membership. The General Assembly on November 4, 1950, adopted the eight-power resolution by 38 votes to 10, with 12 abstentions. Only the Soviet group, together with Guatemala, Israel, Mexico, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia, voted adversely. Before the end of the year the Food and Agriculture Organization had admitted Spain to membership and the International Civil Aviation Organization had resumed relations with Spain. C. GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1. General Assembly Resolution on Uniting for Peace A significant achievement of the fifth session of the General Assembly, and a major development in the United Nations, was the adoption of the resolution entitled "Uniting for Peace." Secretary of State Acheson first stated the principles of this resolution in the general debate on September 20. Later the United States proposed that the item be included in the agenda and jointly with Canada, France, the Philippines, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay submitted a draft resolution on the subject. Chile became a cosponsor during the course of debate when a new section was added on her initiative. The Assembly adopted the resolution by the overwhelming majority of 52 votes to 5 (Soviet bloc), with 2 abstentions (Argentina and India). The Uniting for Peace program is designed to apply the lessons learned in the Korean case and to overcome some of the obstacles to |