SOUTH AFRICA AND UNO

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 71, Issue 36, 22 November 1950, Page 5

SOUTH AFRICA AND UNO

TREATMENT OF INDIANS OBSERVERS EXPECT TROUBLE (N.Z.P.A. —Copy right) (Rec. 10.5.) NEW YORK, Nov. 21. Observers dose to South Africa’s United Nations delegation expect that South Africa will drastically alter her relationship to the United Nations, and perhaps leave the organisation as a result of a resolution involving the treatment of Indians in South Africa, which was carried by the Uno Special Political Committee to-day. They expect South Africa to take this action when the resolution goes before .the General Assembly eithei next. Friday or Monday. The resolution described South Africa’s Group Areas (Apartheid) Act as being based on doctrines of racial discrimination. It recommended that the Governments of India, Pakistan and South Africa hold a round table conference, previously suggested by the United Nations, and in the event of failure to hold the conference, there should be established w negotiating commission of three, including one member appointed by South Africa, one jointly by India ana Pakistan or—in the event of failure of these two countries to agree—by the United Nations Secretary-General. The resolution called on the Soutn African, Indian and Pakistan Governments to refrain from steps prejudicing the negotiations, particularly the implementation of the Group Areas Act.

.After paragraph by paragraph voting, the resolution as a whole was carried by 2G votes to 6, with 24 aostentions and four absentees.

Australia, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg and the Netherlands joinea South Africa in opposition. Britain, France, U.S.A, and Russia abstained, as did New Zealand. Those voting for the resolution included all Asian countries except Siam, and all Middle and Near-East countries except Turkey. All European countries except Yugoslavia abstained or opposed the resolution.

South Africa’s attitude was based on a claim that the committee’s decision was an attempt by a section of Uno members to intervene in the Union’s domestic affairs by calling for the suspension of constitutionallyenacted legislation. This was the argument which the Minister of the Interior, Mr Donges, used unavailingly in the committee’s debates. He again criticised what he called “the pattern of intervention." Over-riding Charter While most countries favouring the recommendation recognised that the Charter had safeguarding clauses against interference in domestic affairs, they felt that the nature of India’s charges, including racial discrimination against South Africa, such as to give them authority to override the Charter’s protection. They cited the Charter’s clauses affecting fundamental freedoms as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as giving this authority. Mr Donges claimed, in reply, that the Group Areas Act did not clash with these provisions, and that though there was a degree of differentiation between racial groups, it did not violate either human rights 'or fundamental freedoms. Pressure from Middle Eastern Asian countries in the debates became so strong that India was overshadowed, and recommendation represented firmer action than India’s original proposal. Those countries also so amended and strengthened another proposal by the Big Five Powers that the latter, except China, eventually abstained from voting. Much of this Middle East Asian action stemmed from the South African denial throughout the six days’ debate of the United Nations’ competence under the Charter to deal with a dispute about domestic legislation. They demonstrated that sentiment against “infraction of human rights” was much stronger than it originally seemed. Amendments made by these national elements so satisfied the Indian delegation that it decided, for strategical reasons, to withdraw its own proposal for resuming the roundtable conference. Situation Inflammable Mrs Pandit, the Indian Ambassador in Washington, who headed the Indian delegation for the debate, said after the vote that there had been a definite “racial streak” in the way the ballots were cast. She added that the situation was “inflammable,” and might be ignited at any moment. Canvassing became active as soon as the committee voted in preparation for the General Assembly debate, especially among borderline countries. Some of the most influential members abstaining from the committee vote concentrated their efforts on obtaining support for the removal of a section of the recommendation most offensive to South Africa, namely, the recommendation that the Group Areas Act should not be implemented pending the round-table conference. They are reported to include Britain, the United States and France.