United Nations
GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
TWENTY-SECOND SESSION
Official Records
CONTENTS
Agenda item 24:
Activities of foreign economic and other in-
terests which are impeding the implemen-
tation of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples in Southern Rhodesia, South West
Africa and Territories under Portuguese
domination and in all other Territories
under colonial domination and efforts to
eliminate colonialism, apartheid and racial
discrimination in southern Africa (continued)
General debate (continued) .•.•• ~-.-.-. •
Agenda item 64:
Question of South West Africa (hearing of
petitioners) (concluded)
Draft report of the Fourth Committee • • . •
Agenda item 66:
Question of Territories under Portuguese
administration (concluded):
(§) Report of the Special Committee on the
Situation with regard to the Implementa-
tion of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples;
@ Report of the Secretary-General
Draft report of the Fourth Committee
Agenda item 23:
Implementation of the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-
tries and Peoples: report of the Special
Committee on the Situation with regard to
the Implementation of the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-
tries and Peoples: Territories not con-
sidered separately
Hearing ofa petitioner from British Honduras
Requests for hearings (continued)
Request from the representative ofthe student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (agenda
item 24) • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • •
Chairman: Mr. George J. TOMEH (Syria).
AGENDA ITEM 24
Activities of foreign economic and other interests
which are impeding the implementation of the Decla-
ration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples in Southern Rhodesia, South
West Africa and Territories under Portuguese
domination and in all other Territories under colo-
FOURTH COMMITTEE, 1719th
MEETING
Wednesday, 15 November 1.967,
at 3.30 p.m.
NEW YORK
nial domination and efforts toeliminatecolonialism,
Page apartheid and racial discrimination in southern
Africa (continued) (A/6868 and Add.l)
GENERAL DEBATE (continued)
1, Mr. PAKHARENKO (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic) said that the consideration of agenda item 24
reflected the need to determine what were the main
obstacles to the political and economic independence
of the colonial countries and peoples. The activities
of international monopolistic capital were of primary
importance in that respect. Indeed, the whole history
of capitalism was linked to the plundering of the
247 colonies, and the export of capital was the foundation
of imperialist domination and the oppression of colo-
nial Territories, Monopolistic capital did not hesitate
to use any means to achieve its main objective of
making a maximum profit. It had divided the countries
250 and territories of the Third World into spheres of
influence and was now dominating all the sectors of
production and all aspects of life in the capitalist
world, The imperialist monopolies, which had brought
about two world wars, were at present the cause of
the prevailing international tension and the arms
race. They were responsible for the criminal adven-
ture of the United States in Viet-Nam and for the
new aggression against the Arab States.
2. Having impeded the development of the colonial
250 Territories for decades, even centuries, the mono-
polies were still mercilessly exploiting the indigenous
peoples. The revenues from the investments of the
monopolies of the United States alone in Africa, Asia
and Latin America had amounted to $10,000 million
during the period 1960 to 1964, The imperialist mono-
polies reigned supreme in Africa and were practically
in control of the economy of the Portuguese colonies,
Southern Rhodesia and South West Africa, Their
investments in those Territories amounted to more
~SO than $5,000 million. Their activities were responsible
for the unilateral development of the colonies and the
enslavement of the international markets, United
States, United Kingdom, German, Belgian and Por-
tuguese companies controlled all the mineral re-
258 sources of Angola. The return on the investments in
that Territory was about 40 per cent in industry and
from 60 to 75 per cent in agriculture. The annual
profits of Diamang, the most powerful of the mono-
polies in so-called Portuguese Africa, now exceeded
its registered capital, which amounted to 294.1 million
escudos. Its shareholders received dividends of about
40 to 50 per cent. In 1966 Diamang had paid 2,366
million escudos to the Portuguese Treasury. The
profits of another company, Petrangol, had risen
from 56 million escudos in 1963 to 172,7 million
escudos in 1965; that monopoly proposed to pay the
Portuguese Government a "bonus" of 30 million
247 A/C.4/SR.1719
248 General Assembly - Twenty-second Session - Fourth Committee
escudos and was to lend it 290 million escudos. Those
examples showed that monopolistic capital was the
main support of Portuguese colonialism and that it
was one of the major obstacles to the attainment of
true independence by the peoples of Angola, Mozam-
bique and other Territories under Portuguese domi-
nation, The monopolies of the United States, the United
Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and other
capitalist countries were playing an equally criminal
role in Southern Rhodesia. Their domination had
enabled the illegal Smith r~gime to consolidate itself
and to circumvent the Security Council's imposition
of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. The mono-
polies of West Germany had increased their activities
in Southern Rhodesia since the adoption of the decision
on sanctions and the supporters of the racist Smith
r~gime had launched an active campaign in the United
States. Capital from the United States, the United
Kingdom and South Africa controlled all the mining
industry of South West Africa, Consolidated Diamond
Mines of South West Africa, Ltd., had made profits of
about 369 million rands in twenty years. The profits
of the Tsumeb Corporation, another United States
company, from 1948 to 1961 had amounted to more
than 140 million rands, or seventy times its registered
capital. Those fantastic profits were either ex-
patriated or appropriated by the white minority,
3, The handful of millionaires who controlled all the
natural resources of South Africa had taken over
nearly all the best land in the region, in concert with
the white settlers. In Southern Rhodesia the white
settlers possessed 45 per cent of the arable land,
which produced 93 per cent of the agricultural produc-
tion. Nearly half the land of South Wdst Africa had
been handed over to foreign monopolies, for prospect-
ing. At the same time 54.5 per cent of the indigenous
population had been <;oncentrated in four reserves.
4, With the support of the colonial r~gimes, the
foreign monopolies had deprived the people of the
Territories of their inalienable right to exploit their
natural resources as the rightful owners. The dis-
criminatory legislation .in force in Angola, Mozam-
bique, Southern Rhodesia and South West Africa pre-
vented the indigenous inhabitants from taking part
in the political and economic life of their countries
and condemned them to poverty, hunger and un-
precedented suffering.
5. As a result of racial discrimination in wages, a
white settler was paid ten to fifteen times as much
as an indigenous worker. That policy. together with
forced exchanges of manpower between the colonial
Territories for the purpose of maintaining a low rate
of wages, accounted for the fabulous profits made
by the monopolies. The majority of the indigenous
people were illiterate and received scarcely any
medical care.
6. The exploitation and even the plundering of the
people by the imperialists were indissolubly linked
to the military activities of the colonial Powers
against the national liberation movements, Evidence
of that was to be found in the use of the military bases
at Guam, Ascension Island, Aden, etc., for that
purpose; the liquidation of those bases was one of the
principal conditions for the elimination of colonialism.
7, The United Nations should condemn the activity
of foreign monopolies in the colonial Territories, The
work of the Special Committee on the Situation with
regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples was making a not inconsiderable contribution
to that objective, The Ukrainian people, who had
suffered the twofold exploitation of indigenous and
foreign capitalists before the October Revolution,
understood the present sufferings of the colonial
peoples. At that time the Ukraine, too, had been
regarded by foreign capitalists as a source of raw
materials and cheap labour, When the Ukrainian
people had broken the chains of slavery once and for
:;.11 in 1917, they had transformed their country into
a great industrial and agricultural Power, where
science and art flourished,
8. The Ukrainian delegation endorsed the conclu-
sions of the Special Committee regarding the re-
actionary role of foreign economic and financial
interests in the colonies. It considered that the
General Assembly should condemn the activity of
the foreign monopolies in the colonies, since that
activity was the main obstacle to the implementation
of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), The South
African and Portuguese Governments and the racist
r~gime in Southern Rhodesia should be condemned
in the strongest terms for the active support they
were giving the imperialist monopolies. The United
Nations should demand that the administering Powers
should promptly restore to the indigenous people the
land of which they had been deprived. He supported
the Soviet Union delegation '.s proposal (1718th meeting)
that steps should be taken to put an end to the criminal
activities of the foreign monopolies in the colonial
Territories. He also felt that it would be advisable to
ask the Secretary-General to see that information on
those activities was more widely disseminated,
Finally, he was in favour of keeping item 24 on the
agenda of the General Assembly and supported the
suggestion that the Special Committee should be re-
quested to draw up new recommendations on the
question.
9. Mr. FALL (Senegal) said that he wished to explain
the angle from which his delegation proposed to take
part in the discussion of the item before the Com-
mittee, His delegation considered that the practices
that arose from multilateral and bilateral agreements
between independent countries should not be invoked
in the present debate to justify one or another position
in connexion with the colonial Territories. Further-
more, in his opinion the study of the activities of
foreign interests in the colonial Territories should not
be made the occasion for value judgements on political
and social systems in effect in the world,
10. His delegation did not think that economic co-
operation could be an obstacle to the rational develop-
ment of countries if it was properly organized. Nor
did it think that foreign interests alone could by their
activities call into question the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples. In his delegation's opinion, those interests,
powerful as they might be, were merely auxiliaries,
though privileged ones, of colonialism. It was there-
fore important to avoid the two extremes ofregarding
 1719th meeting- 15 November 1967
them either as solely responsible or as simple
accessories, when the fact was that they shared one
and the same responsibility with the administering
Powers.
11. It was clear that, once those interests had been
deprived of any power to do harm, it would rest with
the colonized peoples to show a political determination
for independence. For that, as had been said, it was
necessary that there should be a single-minded desire
for liberation, while it was hoped that the colonizers
would allow the people a clear choice. Lastly, the
debate on the item under consideration should not
consist in simply listing the activities which were
impeding the attainment of independence by the colo-
nial peoples, but it should include other factors, par-
ticularly political, cultural and racial factors, which
were inseparable from the process of decolonization.
12. The report of Sub-Committee I (A/6868/Add,1),
which had been adopted by the Special Committee,
had given rise to a good deal of criticism. To those
who complained of the inadequacy of information
obtained from direct sources, the reply should be that
those who had been expected to provide such infor-
mation had shown little eagerness to do so. Moreover,
he found it regrettable that there should be criticisms
of the impassioned language of the report of Sub-
Committee I and that it should be maintained by some
speakers that the members of the Sub-Committee had
been biased. If there was one question that could not
fail to arouse passions, it was that of the decolo-
nization, independence and freedom of the peoples.
In the opinion of the Senegalese delegation, the report
of Sub-Committee I represented the outcome of
excellent work and, thanks to it, the Committee had
the information it needed in order to study the ques-
tion before it and to take a decision in full knowledge
of the facts. Any reservations that might be made
could only be an evasion of the subject, a refusal to
speak about a fundamental problem.
13. The study of the item before the Committee
would certainly lead to another condemnation of
colonialism, which would be the more warranted as
South Africa, Portugal and Southern Rhodesia, sup-
ported by international monopolies, were seeking to
justify the tragic situation prevailing in southern
Africa, Notoriously, the purpose of colonization was
to exploit the wealth of the occupied Territories. It
had also been proved that the sole purpose of foreign
companies was to obtain maximum profits from
their participation in that exploitation, so that the
colonizing States and the international monopolies
were members of the same team in that treasure
hunt, Since common interests led to common action,
the administering Powers and their allies formed a
united front in opposing the implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colo-
nial Countries and Peoples.
14. No one had flatly denied that the monopolies
hampered the movement of the subject peoples towards
emancipation; but the latest apologists of colonization
still urged greater circumspection and spoke of subtle
distinctions, benefits, and lack of proof that the
presence of foreign interests hindered the colonial
people's progress towards independence. Yet it was
common knowledge that wherever the monopolies
had taken root, their iniquities knew no bounds. The
249
lands of the indigenous inhabitants were alienated,
reserves were established for them-a radical
method of completing the demoralization and de-
mobilization of the population-none of their political
or trade union rights were recog~ized, and racial
discrimination had become a system under which
everything was done to suppress the struggle for
liberation. Moreover, and for the same reasons,
efforts were being made to develop the cash economy
at the expense of the subsistence economy. Lastly,
investments were made on a regional basis as part
of a global strategy to remove southern Africa from
the mainstream of decolonization,
15. Needless to say, those various measures yielded
exceptionally high profits to the exploiting minority,
at the expense of an utterly pauperized sub-proletariat.
Those fabulous profits explained why the international
monopolies should connive with such States as Por-
tugal and South Africa and with the rebel r~gime of
Salisbury. Unless compelled to do so, the foreign
firms would never give up business yielding 20 to 27
per cent in dividends, since investments in their
own countries would not give them more than 5 to 9
per cent returns at best. The Territories were being
plundered under the eyes and with the full consent of
the administering Powers. Those Powers were not
concerned with the well-beingofthecolonizedpeoples,
being wholly absorbed with that of their own nationals
and their allies,
16. The reason why a country such as Portugal, in-
stead of protecting the interests of the people, gave a
free hand to the international monopolies was that,
lacking the financial means to execute its policy, it
was obliged, in order to remain in Africa, to bow to
the wishes of the foreign companies which supported
it. The logical deduction was that putting an end to
the activities of the foreign interests would also mean
putting an end to Portuguese colonization; that was an
added reason for vigorous condemnation of the inter-
national monopolies which exploited the Territories
which were still dependent.
17. The expansion of the foreign interests was signi-
ficant in that it testified to a resurgence of re-
actionary forces, and a renewed desire to establish
themselves and take possession of the coveted riches
-a state of affairs facilitated by strikingly com-
plaisant legislation. That frenzied exploitation neces-
sitated a system of defence against foreseeable revolt.
The stake was so high that it was understandable why
the monopolies took part in repression side by side
with the forces of the administering Powers, Those
monopolies, which of course were exempted from
taxes and export and import duties, enjoyed yet
another privilege-that of maintaining private armies.
18. In Southern !Rhodesia, . immediately after the
unilateral declaration of independence, the foreign
firms had defeated the United Nations sanctions by
giving aid to European tobacco and sugar growers,
using substitutes for import goods that had been cut
off, reinvesting their dividends when it would have
been risky to export them and organizing deliveries
of petroleum and petroleum products from South
Africa and Mozambique. Those activities were
at>solutely contrary to the interests of the indigenous
people and to the intentions of the United Nations.
250 General Assembly - Twenty-second Session - Fourth Committee
19. Consideration of conditions in any other Terri-
tory would lead to the same conclusions. Everywhere
in colonial Territories, foreign interests behaved as
unquestioned masters; everywhere they were linked
with international financial groups and colonial
Governments by a system of joint profits; everywhere
they acted without regard to the harmonious develop-
ment of the Territories or the legitimate wishes of the
people, inciting administering Powers to resort to
harsher methods of domination and, if necessary,
violent repression; and everywhere they thwarted
the people's desire for liberation.
20. His delegation was happy to see that Sub-
Committee I had adopted its report almost unani-
mously, and was pleased at the vote cast by the
Special Committee. It noted that there had been only
slight differences of opinion on the substance of the
problem and that no one had attempted a convinced
and successful defence of the foreign companies, which
the Fourth Committee must condemn with the same
severity that it had shown in judging colonial Powers.
21. His delegation was prepared to take part in
formulating a draft resolution unequivocally reaffirm-
ing the inalienable right of the inhabitants of the
colonial Territories to dispose of their natural re-
sources and exploit them for their own benefit,
pending confirmation and exercise of their right to
self-determination and independence.
AGENDA ITEM 64
Question of South West Africa (hearing of petitioners)
(cone Iuded )*
DRAFT REPORT OF THE FOURTH COMMITTEE
(A/C.4/L.873)
22. Mr. DASHTSEREN (Mongolia), Rapporteur, intro-
duced the Fourth Committee's draft report on the
question of South West Africa (A/C.4/L.873). In para-
graph 3 of the English text, the name of the first
petitioner had been misspelt; it should read "Mr.
Jacob Kuhangua", There was also a mistake in the
name of the organization represented by Mr. Mbaeva
and Mr. Ketina, the second group of petitioners on the
list; that organization's correct name was South West
Africa National United Front (SWANUF).
23. The CHAIRMAN said that the Secretariat would
make the necessary corrections.
The draft report on the question of South West Africa
A/C.4/L.873) was adopted without objection.
AGENDA ITEM 66
Question of Territories under Portugueseadministro-
tion (concluded):**
(,9) Report of the Special Committee on the Situation
with regard to the Implementation of the Decla-
ration on the Go-t:mting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples;
(hl Report of the Secretary-General
DRAFT REPORT OF THE FOURTH COMMITTEE
(A/C.4/L.874)
24. Mr. DASHTSEREN (Mongolia), Rapporteur, intro-
duced the Fourth Committee's draft report on the
*Resumed from the 1699th meeting.
**Resumed from the 1717th meeting.
question of Territories under Portuguese administra-
tion (A/C.4/L.874) and drew attention to paragraph 13,
containing the draft resolution whose adoption the
Committee recommended to the General Assembly.
The draft report on the question of Territories
under Portuguese administration (A/C.4/L.874) was
adopted without objection.
AGENDA ITEM 23
Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples:
report of the Special Committee on the Situation
with regard to the Implementation of the Dec !oration
on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun-
tries and Peoples: Territories not considered sepa-
rately (A/C.4/694)
HEARING OF A PETITIONER FROM BRITISH HON-
DURAS (A/C.4/694)
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Philip S. W.
Goldson, Leader of the Opposition, British Honduras,
and Mr. Compton Fairweather, an adviser, tookplaces
at the Committee table.
Mr. Braithwaite (Guyana), Vice-Chairman, took the
Chair.
25. Mr. GOLDSON (Leader of the Opposition, British
Honduras) thanked the Fourth Committee for the
opportunity to speak to it on the case of British
Honduras.
26, Before dealing with that question, he felt he
owed some explanation to the Committee because of
the accusations levelled against him. The represen-
tative of Guatemala had charged that his petition for
a hearing before the Committee had been motivated
by political and personal considerations aimed at
securing a position of advantage in the forthcoming
electoral contest in British Honduras. Moreover, by
saying that he had an office in New York, the Guate-
malan representative had implied that he had virtually
unlimited funds. He gave the Committee his categorical
assurance that his presence was not motivated by any
political or personal considerations. The next general
elections in British Honduras were due in 1970; he
had no knowledge of any plans for an earlier election,
such as the Guatemalan representative had had in
mind. The United Kingdom Government and the
British Honduras Government refused to commit
themselves to holding new elections before inde-
pendence on the ground that the question was totally
premature. Moreover, the Opposition Party, of which
he was the leader, had no office inN ew York and could
not afford one. Its only office was at Belize, the capital
of Honduras, Perhaps the reference had been to the
office of an information service in Brooklyn maintained
by the British Honduras Freedom Committee, whose
Chairman, Mr. Compton Fairweather, had accom-
panied him to the Fourth Committee. The Freedom
Committee, as the Guatemalan representative was
perfectly well aware, was a group of patriotically-
minded British Hondurans resident in the United States
whose aim, which coincided with the aim of the Opposi-
tion Party, was to ensure that British Honduras, after
decolonization by the United Kingdom, was not re-
colonized by Guatemala, as was Guatemala's intention.
The Freedom Committee had offered its full support
 1719th meeting - 15 November 1967
to the Premier of British Honduras and to himself,
and had pledged to support such moves as might be
made to ensure that British Honduras achieved
sovereignty and independence.
27, He had asked to appear before the Fourth Com-
mittee in order to oppose Guatemala's claim and to
declare that the people of British Honduras would
never submit to Guatemalan domination, That was a
sentiment which the Committee members would readily
understand: they, too, would not hesitate to appeal to
the United Nat ions to protect their countries from
being unjustly absorbed.
28, He himself had suffered imprisonment for having
opposed British colonialism, and he would fight to
the death against the recolonization of his country by
Guatemala; thousands of his countrymen would lay
down their lives for the independence of their land.
29, He had already demonstrated that Guatemala's
claim to British Honduras was totally unfounded, and
his statement on the subject was contained in the
record of the 548th meeting of the Special Committee
held on 30 August 1967 (A/AC.109/SR.548), He merely
wished to recall the fact that at no time in its history
had Guatemala ever owned or occupied British Hon-
duras, which had already been a self-governing com-
munity 183 years before Guatemala had ceased to be a
Spanish colony. Spain itself had never occupied British
Honduras and had therefore never left it to Guatemala
as a bequest, as the latter claimed.
30, Guatemala maintained that a boundary treaty
which it had concluded with Great Britain in 1859
contained a secret clause whereby Guatemala would
relinquish the rights it had inherited from Spain in
return for a British promise to help in the construc-
tion of a road linking Guatemala City to the Caribbean
Sea. Guatemala now claimed that Britain had never
kept its promise, and that Guatemala was therefore
entitled to re-exercise its right to British Honduras.
Since 1940, however, Guatemala had repeatedly refused
British offers to submit the dispute to the International
Court of Justice, from which it could only be concluded
that Guatemala was in great doubt as to the legal and
historical validity of its claims to British Honduras,
31, According to the Guatemalan thesis, the secret
deal with Great Britain in 1859 had had to be kept
secret in order to prevent the United States from
becoming aware of the fact that Britain, a European
Power, had been acquiring new territory in the area
contrary to the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850, The
United Kingdom now denied that fact. However, the
people of British Honduras were aware that their
present troubles stemmed from that "secret" deal
made between Great Britain and Guatemala more
than a century ago at a time when they were quite
unable to express opinions regarding their own
destiny.
32. That was why the population was uneasy about
the secret conferences which had been conducted by
the United Kingdom and Guatemala during the past
five years concerning the future of their Territory.
Once more, as in 1859, the latter's fate was being
decided behind their backs, with the difference that
in 1859 big power politics had reigned unchecked
and the voice of a small group of British Hondurans
251
would not even have been a whisper on the inter-
national scene, Things had since changed, and the
inhabitants of the Territory accordingly placed their
hopes in the United Nations.
33. The people of British Honduras were opposed to
Guatemalan annexation or political association, how-
ever disguised. They had demonstrated their opposi-
tion by protests, petitions, public demonstrations and
even by riots, and would continue to demonstrate it
if need be,
34. During the past decade, the various protagonists
had held a series of secret conferences aimed at
bringing British Honduras under Guatemalan control.
They had started in November 1957, when the United
Kingdom Government had announced the discovery of
a plot involving the then Guatemalan Minister in
London and Mr. George Price, at present Prime
Minister of British Honduras, who had headed the
British Honduran delegation visiting London to have
financial talks with it. According to the United Kingdom
Government, the Guatemalan Minister and Mr. Price
had proposed a plan to several members of the British
Honduran delegation to make British Honduras an
associate State of Guatemala with local self-govern-
ment but with foreign affairs and financial control
left to Guatemala. In other words, the British colonial
relationship was to be replaced by a Guatemalan one.
35. The British, who at that time had not been quite
ready to leave British Honduras, had denounced the
conspirators, expelled the Guatemalan Minister and
forced Mr. Price to give up the post he had occupied,
Two years later, when the Guatemalan Government had
imposed a 100 per cent increase iii. import duties on
British goods, the effect had been to temper United
K-ingdom antagonism towards Guatemala, and Mr. Price
had been re-elected with British support in 1961.
36. In the meantime, other difficulties had arisen.
For almost a century, Guatemala had been trying to
persuade the United States to mediate in the dispute
over British Honduras, in the belief that the United
States would be favourable towards its claim. In
January 1962, General Miguel Ydfgoras Fuentes, the
then President of Guatemala, had reminded President
John F, Kennedy of the terms of a secret agreement
under which the United States had undertaken to put
pressure on the United Kingdom to hand British
Honduras over to Guatemala in exchange for the
Guatemalans having allowed Cuban exiles to be trained
at the Central Intelligence Agency base at Retalhuleu
for the invasion of Cuba. The petitioner went on to
quote a passage from a speech by the Guatemalan
President, as set forth by Mr. Mario Rosenthal in his
book Guatemala (New York, Twayne Publishers, 1962),
in which he had said that the United States had a his-
toric responsibility to Guatemala regarding the Terri-
tory of Belize. Mr. Rosenthal had commented that he
had been assured by an informed Guatemalan that the
United States had actually promised Guatemala to help
it obtain restitution of Belize under certain conditions.
The United States State Department had, of course,
denied that a secret agreement had been concluded,
and the United Kingdom Foreign Office had likewise
disclaimed any knowledge of it, but according to
The New York Times of 3 January 1962 such a promise
might conceivably have been made to President
252 General Assembly - Twenty-second Session - Fourth Committee
Ydfgoras by the Central Intelligence Agency, which
had handled the Bay of Pigs operation,
37. Shortly after, a series of conferences had taken
place, the first in Puerto Rico in April 1962, followed
by one in washington in 1963 and others in Miami,
Washington, New York and London in 1965 and 1966.
The British Honduras Government had been repre-
sented at the Puerto Rico Conference, but the Opposi-
tion had been barred. He himself, notwithstanding,
had gone to Puerto Rico and had taken advantage of
mass media to put the case for genuine independence
for his country. Neither the British Honduras Govern-
ment nor the Opposition had attended the 1963 Washing-
ton meeting, but both had been invited to the series of
conferences held in 1965, In June 1965, in London,
the proposal had been made to submit the dispute to
mediation by the United States, but both the British
Honduras Government and the Opposition had objected
to appointment of the United States as sole mediator,
and it had therefore been understood that three medi-
ators would be appointed, one from the United States,
one from a Scandinavian country and one from an
African or an Asian country, and that their terms of
reference would be agreed on at a further conference.
38. In November 1965, however, a "Voice of America"
broadcast heard in British Honduras had made it known
that a secret conference had been taking place in
Washington to brief a New York lawyer named Mr.
Bethuel M. Webster, the mediator chosen to settle
the dispute, on his terms of reference. According to
the broadcast, Mr. Webster's appointment had been
made by President Johnson, who had agreed, at the
request of the United Kingdom and Guatemala, to act
as sole mediator. Further inquiries had revealed that
a Minister of the British Honduras C..overnment had
been present at the conference. When the Opposition
had asked why it had not been asked to attend or even
been notified of the conference, the answer given was
that the Government had not known about the conference
and that its Minister had been attending another con-
ference in Miami by chance and had been invited to
attend by the Washington conference conveners; later
an amended statement had been issued to the effect
that the Government had learnt about the conference
at short notice and had cabled its Minister in Miami
to attend; and finally it had been stated that the Govern-
ment had known of the conference, but not the exact
date, and had sent the Minister to Miami for another
conference but with instructions to stand by to attend
the Washington conference with the new mediator.
39, Whatever was the true story, no explanation had
been given with regard to the choice of a sole mediator
instead of three, or why the Opposition had not been
informed and invited to the Washington conference.
In December 1965, a second conference with the
mediator had been held in New York, and on that
occasion the Opposition had been informed but not
invited to attend, For that conference, as for the others,
no report had been issued or made available to those
most vitally concerned.
40, In January 1966, the mediator had visited British
Honduras and later Guatemala City. A group of citizens
organized into a non-political body named CIVIC had
tried to stage a demonstration so as to show the
mediator that British Hondurans were against any
form of political incorporation with Guatemala, That
peaceful group had been prevented by the police from
demonstrating in front of the United States Consulate,
where the mediator had been present.
41. In February 1966, the Opposition party had been
invited to attend a conference with the mediator in
New York. Once again, the British Honduran people
had not been allowed to know of the fate in store for
them, for it had been specified that no publicity was
to be given to the meeting. At the end of May 1966,
another secret conference had taken place at the
Foreign Office in London, attended by a Foreign
Office and Colonial Office delegation and a seven-
member delegation from the British Honduras Govern-
ment and Opposition, The petitioner had on that occa-
sion immediately asked for an explanation of why three
mediators ·had not been appointed, as had been agreed
upon at the earlier conference in London. The head
of the United Kingdom delegation had replied that
having one or three mediators was of minor impor-
tance, that all the parties had agreed to mediation, and
that they were now present to examine the results of
that mediation. All he himself had been able to do at
that stage had been to protest. The head of the United
Kingdom delegation had gone on to state that his
Government had received from the mediator, who had
been in London in April, the draft of the proposals
which he would be submitting to President Johnson,
and that the United Kingdom Government had already
accepted the draft at Cabinet level, subject to certain
adjustments to be made to it. He had added that the
British Honduras political leaders had been called to
London to be shown the draft as a "privilege" and not
a right, that the conference was a secret one, and that
the participants would not be allowed to carry con-
ference documents from the room. They had also been
told that their comments would be taken into con-
sideration, but that no major changes could be made
in the proposals, which had already been accepted by
the United Kingdom and Guatemala in principle. It was
to be presumed that they had been accepted by the
United States also.
42, The draft agreement later shown to the delegates
had been basically the same as the unpopular 1957
plan, which at the time had so angered the United
Kingdom Government that it had asked for the recall
of the Guatemalan Minister in London, The intended
agreement contained thirteen proposals but there was
no provision for independence for British Honduras.
Later in the discussions the representative of British
Honduras had been told that such expressions as "inde-
pendence" and "sovereignty" would only antagonize
Guatemala if they appeared in the documents, The
impression had been given in such explanations that
British Honduras would somehow end up with inde-
pendence without Guatemala's realizing what had
happened. The draft agreement had provided for the
withdrawal of the United Kingdom by a date subse-
quently fixed at not later than December 1968,
43, Under the same draft agreement the ~.vernment
of Guatemala would, when requested, provide diplo-
matic representation for the Government of Belize,
and would also be responsible for relations with
international bodies. Furthermore, on the coming
into effect of the agreement, Guatemala would assume
joint responsibility for the Territory with the United
 1719th meeting- 15 November 1967
Kingdom, and on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom,
Guatemala would assume defence responsibilities for
the country and would also have the rightto patrol the
coast of British Honduras. An authority consisting of
three British Honduran ministers, three Guatemalan
ministers and an independent chairman would ad-
minister certain roads, ports and economic schemes.
44, The Opposition had naturally rejeded that plan
and, when newspapers in Trinidad and Jamaica had
published details of it, he (the speaker) had confirmed
them by publishing the thirteen proposals as he had
noted them down from memory; the same proposals
were set forth in United Nations document A/AC.109/
PET ,528. After their publication, it had been stated
that they were a complete invention on his part, and
the United Kingdom Government, the British Honduras
Government, the Guatemalan Government and the
United States Government had hastened to deny their
existence. There had even been talk of a prosecution
being brought against him under the Official Secrets
Act, although that idea had been quickly abandoned
when it had been realized that that would be tantamount
to an admission that he had spoken the truth about the
proposals.
45. He would now deal with the latest development in
the story. In July 1967 another secret conference had
been held at the Foreign Office in London, between
Mr. George Brown, the United Kingdom Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Emilio Arenales
CataHin, the Foreign Minister of Guatemala, in spite
of the fact that there were no diplomatic relations
between the United Kingdom and Guatemala. The
British Honduras Government had not been invited
because, according to a statement made at a public
meeting by Mr. Price, the Premier of British Hon-
duras, the Leader of the Opposition would also have
had to be invited. On 5 August 1967, two London news-
papers, the Daily Express and The Times, had pub-
lished reports about a secret British plan, drawn up
under United States pressure, to "sell out" British
Honduras to Guatemala. That plan was the same as
the 1966 proposals and the 1957 plan, with some
variation in wording. It provided that the United
Kingdom would quit the Territory under such condi-
tions as to leave British Honduras with a token
independence that would, in reality, make it a Guate-
malan satellite. The newspaper revelations compelled
the four Governments involved to make further public
denials. Representatives of the Foreign Office and the
Commonwealth Relations Office had arrived in British
Honduras within three days after the publication of
the newspaper reports. They had assured the Premier
and the Leader of the Opposition that nothing of the
kind w:;ts contemplated by the United Kingdom Govern-
ment. However, the fact that those two senior civil
servants had travelled under false names raised the
question whether the action of the Government they
represented was really in good faith.
46. He asked what kind of independence British Hon-
duras would receive under the "protection" and "eco-
nomic control" of Guatemala, whose population was
4,5 million whereas that of British! Honduras was
110,000, The Constitution of Guatemala claimed that
British Honduras was a "Department" of Guatemala
and that that portion of the "national territory" was
illegally occupied by the United Kingdom, However, he
253
wished to point out that the people of his country were
ethnically, historically, culturally and linguistically
entirely different from Guatemala. It would seem
desirable for the United Kingdom to settle its disputes
with Guatemala before British Honduras became
independent, but that should not be done at the expense
of British Honduras and its people. British Honduras
could not be truly independent unless it was consulted
on all questions that concerned it, The dispute between
the United Kingdom and Guatemala had arisen out of
article 7 of the Treaty of 1859, British Honduras had
not been a ·party to that Treaty and the road which
Guatemala claimed Great Britain had not built, con-
trary to article 7, would not have passed through the
Territory of British Honduras but would have linked
Guatemala City to the lakeside port of Izabal and,
under the Treaty, its purpose had been to aid the
commerce of England and the material prosperity
of Guatemala.
47. It seemed to him that the United Kingdom should
settle its dispute with Guatemala through monetary
compensation, or some other means, but not by grant-
ing rights and concessions which would derogate from
the sovereignty of an independent British Honduras.
Such a method of settlement, it might be noted, had
been suggested by Mr. L. M. Bloomfield, an eminent
Canadian international lawyer, in his book entitled
The British Honduras-Guatemala Dispute (Toronto,
the Carswell Company, Ltd,, 1953).
48. He repeated that it would be wrong for the United
Kingdom, the United States and Guatemala to arrange
the future of British Honduras behind closed doors
without the consent of the people. That could only
lead to the recolonization of British Honduras, as had
been stated by Mr. C. P. Cacho, former Economic
Adviser to the Government of British Honduras, in
the periodical New World Quarterly, 1967 (vol, III,
No. 3).
49. It had been suggested that after the United
Kingdom, the United States and Guatemalahaddecideq
the future of British Honduras behind closed doors
the people of British Honduras would have a say about
those decisions, but it was doubtful that they would be
given such an opportunity. Whenever the question of
relations with Guatemala had been raised nationally,
the Government of British Honduras had expressed
its opposition either subtly or openly, because it
wished to keep the question on the level of party
politics. The Opposition had been forced to assume
the main burden of resistance to Guatemalan inten-
tions, but it was handicapped in the matter of publicity.
After years of debate, the National Assembly had
decided six months previously to give the Opposition
five minutes of radio time per month, to be paid for
at the current commercial rate, but even that tiny
concession had not been implemented. Recently, the
Government of British Honduras had arranged for
the passage of legislation empowering it to declare
illegal any gathering of five or more persons engaged
in the discussion of a political matter, and the ques-
tion of relations with Guatemala was treated as a
political matter.
50, In summary, he requested on behalf of the people
of British Honduras: (1) that the United Kingdom
should not seek to compensate Guatemala for any real
254 General Assembly - Twenty-second Session - Fourth Committee
or imagined breach of the 1859 Treaty by the grant
to Guatemala of any rights whatever over British
Honduras, and if any compensation was deemed neces-
sary, it should be in the form of monetary compensa-
tion; (2) th:'ll: the United States should stop exerting
economic, political or other pressure aimed at handing
British Honduras over to Guatemala as payment of
the "debt" incurred by the United States for permission
to train anti-Castro forces in Guatemala, or for any
other reason; (3) that the United Kingdom should
make arrangements for the security of British Hon-
duras after independence in consultation with the
political leaders of British Honduras and not with
the Government of Guatemala; and (4) that any eco-
nomic treaties or arrangements between British Hon-
duras and neighbouring countries, including Guate-
mala, should be negotiated by British Honduras after
independence and not be imposed by the United
Kingdom and the United States in consultation with
Guatemala,
51, In addition, he requested the General Assembly
to be good enough to place the question of the future
of British Honduras on its agenda; secondly, to send
a commission to British Honduras to ensure that there
were proper conditions for its accession to sovereignty
and independence; and lastly, to authorize the United
Nations to hold a referendum in which the population
would be asked to choose between the following
alternatives: integration into Guatemala or full
independence.
The petitioners withdrew.
Mr. Tomeh (Syria) resumed the Chair.
52, Mr. CASTILLO ARRIOLA (Guatemala) wished to
draw attention first of all to his country's unchanging
anti-colonialist tradition, a tradition which since the
founding of the United Nations had taken the form
of a firm and determined struggle to end colonialism.
There was no need to cite examples or to mention
the names of the representatives of Guatemala who
had followed that unswerving political line. The facts
were well known to the delegations which had par-
ticipated for years .in the deliberations of the Fourth
Committee, and the Committee's documents, together
with the resolutions which Guatemala had submitted
and voted for in the General Assembly, spoke for
themselves, Any number of countries represented in
the Committee could bear that out. His country's
actions in the matter had been in accordance with its
principles, As in the earlier hearing that had taken
place at the fl48th meeting of the Special Committee
on 30 August 1967, his delegation had listened atten-
tively to the statement of Mr. Goldson, who had re-
quested to be heard by the Fourth Committee. Before
making comments of another nature, however, he
wished to make a preliminary observation about
Mr. Goldson's status as a "petitioner", The Guatemalan
delegation did not recognize that status, since peti-
tioners enjoyed such status only by virtue of Ar-
ticle 87 b of the United Nations Charter and only in
relation to inhabitants of Trust Territories. Belize
was not a Trust Territory and therefore Mr. Goldson
lacked the attributes which he had invoked in order
to be heard by the Committee. The Guatemalan dele-
gation accordingly wished to place on record its
reservation concerning the hearing granted to Mr.
Goldson, who could not legitimately claim to intervene
as a petitioner in the process of decolonization en-
trusted as a sacred mission to the United Nations.
53. Furthermore, his delegation wished to reiterate
its position that the Fourth Committee was not com-
petent to consider a question relating to the national
unity and territorial integrity of Guatemala, to which
the principle of self-determination wasnotapplicable,
as his delegation had observed before and as it had
demonstrated, with legal arguments, in its statement
in the Committee on 23 October (1699th meeting),
when, notwithstanding those legal arguments, the Com-
mittee had decided to hear Mr. Goldson. Mr. Goldson
lacked the status of petitioner and the Committee
lacked jurisdiction and competence to consider the
matter, As his delegation had stated in the Special
Committee on 30 August and reiterated in the Fourth
Committee on 23 October, Guatemala maintained its
claim against the United Kingdom in connexion with
the territory in question and had reserved its rights
on every occasion. In the present circumstances, it
was useful to recall that before signing the United
Nations Charter at San Francisco the Guatemalan
delegation had entered an explicit reservation to the
effect that the Trusteeship System was not applicable
to the Guatemalan territory of Belize, which was the
subject of a dispute. His delegation had also drawn
attention to the memorable circumstances surrounding
the adoption of General Assembly resolution 1514
(XV), reported in the verbatim record of the 947th
plenary meeting of the General Assembly, held on
14 December 1960, during which, in connexion with
the vote on draft resolution A/L.323, the Guatemalan
representative had recorded the following reservation:
"In supporting the draft resolution of the African-
Asian Powers [A/L.323 and Add.l-6], my delegation
had introduced the amendment contained in docu-
ment A/L.325 to the effect that the principle of the
self-determination of peoples may in no case impair
the right of territorial integrity of any State or its
right to the recovery of territory. This reservation
seemed to be absolutely desirable since there are
many territories disputed or claimed by other States
as an integral part of their respective countries
which are improperly held by colonial Powers, and
in such disputes the solution cannot run counter
to the principle of self-determination, as that would
infringe the other very important principle of a
country's territorial integrity.
"It is true that paragraph 6 of the resolution con-
tains a positive statement to the effect that 'any
attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of
the national unity and the territorial integrity of a
country is incompatible with the purposes and prin-
ciples of the Charter of the United Nations'. How-
ever, my delegation thought it appropriate to make
its point of view clearer, as is set out in the amend-
ments already mentioned. NevertheJess, my dele-
gation made no objection to withdrawing its amend-
ments in view of the statements made by several of
the sponsors in interpreting paragraph 6 and there-
quest made by the representative of Indonesia, on the
understanding that the rights it was seeking to safe-
guard would be duly protected by paragraph 6, • Y
1/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifteenth Session,
Plenary Meetings, 947th meeting, paras. 63 and 64.
 1719th meeting - 15 November 1967
54. The spirit and the letter of the resolution on the
granting of independence to colonial countries and
peoples had been correctly interpreted on many occa-
sions in the Fourth Committee and in the Special Com-
mittee, where during the consideration of the question
of Gibraltar, in the resolution adopted on 1 September
1967, the point of view traditionally supported by
Guatemala had prevailed: "Considering that any colo-
nial situation which partially or totally disrupts the
national unity and the territorial integrity of a country
is incompatible with the purposes and principles of
the Charter of the United Nations and specifically with
paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)"
(A/6700/Rev.1, chap. X, para. 215). Recently, at the
1568th plenary meeting of the General Assembly, the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ecuador had stated
on that subject: "The exercise of the right to self-
determination cannot detract from respect for the
territorial integrity of States. Accordingly, this right
cannot be exercised by local minorities or by terri-
tories about whose ownership there are disputes of an
international nature."
55. In short, the Guatemalan delegation, which was
strongly anti-colonialist by tradition and inclination,
affirmed that the automatic and indiscriminate appli-
cation of the principle of self-determination would not
make it a panacea and, indeed, was incompatible with
respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of States; it categorically rejected any manceuvre
designed to undermine the purposes and principles
of the United Nations Charter and specifically any
manceuvre designed directly or indirectly to jeopardize
the territorial integrity of Guatemala, within the
meaning of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter.
56, His delegation had heard Mr. Goldson arbitrarily
distort the historical facts about Belize for personal
motives. While he had nointentionofgivinga complete
history of Belize from its origins, based on the
scholarly writings of universally recognized historians
and research workers -and the Fourth Committee was
not the proper place for that-he felt it necessary and
useful to draw attention to some of the basic in-
accuracies in Mr. Goldson's statement.
57. With the discovery of America, which had been
followed by the Spanish conquest and colonization,
Belize-a geographical part of Central America-had
come under the domination of the Spanish Crown,
forming the captaincy-general of Guatemala, which
had extended from the Yucatan peninsula via Chiapas
and Soconusco, the provinces of Central America,
to Panama. The Caribbean Sea had been a good centre
for piracy and some buccaneers had taken advantage
of the coastline of Belize to set up hiding-places and
nests. Towards the middle of the seventeenth century
the pirate Peter Wallace had been looking for a good
spot for his exploits and his choice had fallen on the
Gulf of Honduras, near a waterway which was later to
bear his name (Wallace River), as was the land it
watered, since it was to be called the settlement of
"Belize". The British Crown had not sanctioned those
acts of piracy committed behind its back and by
individuals. Consequently those who had arrived off
the coast of the captaincy-general of Guatemala, to
which Belize had legally belonged, had not been
British castaways, as Mr. Goldson said, or settlers
authorized by the British Government. Nevertheless,
255
the historian Sir John Alder Burdon said that it was
still not possible to say anythingfi'lal about the settle-
ment of Belize. The territory had been covered with
Mayan villages, from Santa Rita Corozal, Chechkita
and Kuaxuinic to Benque Viejo in the .south.
58. The main developments in the history of the
ter.ritory were as follows.
59. England's presence in Belize dated from the
treaties of 1783 and 1786, by which Spain had granted
it a "usufruct" authorizing British nationals to cut
wood in an area situated between the Hondo and Sibun
rivers and comprising about 6,000 square kilometres.
The treaties clearly showed that the cession had not
affected Spanish rights, since Spain had continued to
exercise sovereignty over the area for which usufruct
had been granted.
60. The hostilities which were later to break out
between Spain and England had terminated with the
signing of the peace treaty at Amiens in 1802, by
which the conquered territories had been restored,
with the exception of the islands of Trinidad in the
Caribbean and Ceylon in the Indian Ocean, which had
remained under British sovereignty.
61. In 1814, the Treaty of Madrid was to confirm the
earlier treaties of 1783 and 1786 by maintaining the
usufruct granted to England and by keeping intact
Spain's sovereignty rights, which were the subject of
an explicit reservation.
62. England had on many occasions recognized and
respected Spanish sovereignty over the area for
which usufruct had been granted, as was proved by
instruments of undeniable legal value, whether they
emanated from the various British Governments or
from Parliament. In 1817 and 1819, the British Parlia-
ment had promulgated Acts on criminality in the colo-
nies and on the illegal slave trade, On those two occa-
sions, it had stated that the settlement of Belize "was
not within the territory and dominion of His Majesty
but was merely a settlement for certain purposes, in
the possession and under the protection of His Majesty"
(Basset Moore, vol. Ill, p. 156). The same opinion was
expressed by Sir John Alder Burdon, when he said
"Honduras (Belize) not being a British Colony" (Ar-
chives of British Honduras, vol. II, p. 240). --
63. In 1817, Spanish and British agents had again
been asked to examine on the spot the location of the
boundary markers, which had been inspected within
the limits of the concession granted by Spain in 1786.
64. The year 1821 had seen the proclamation of the
independence of Central America, including the terri-
tories of the former captaincy-general of Guatemala,
for which the usufruct had been granted. The rights of
sovereignty had been transferred to it, as Spain's
heir, without restriction, in accordance with the prin-
ciple res inter alios acta. When the Federation had
been broken up into five republics, each had kept the
frontiers of the administrative districts which had
existed in the former captaincy-general, under the
principle uti possidetis. The part occupied by England
had remained within the geographical limits of the
State of Guatemala.
65. In 1835 and 1836, proof of recognition of Spain's
sovereignty had been provided by the fact that Mr.
256 General Assembly - Twer>ty-second Session - Fourth Committee
George Villiers (later Lord Clarendon and subse-
quently British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs),
then Minister Plenipotentiary of England to the Court
of Spain, had requested the Spanish Government to
cede Spain's rights of sovereignty over Belize (see
document 1, Reproduction of British Documents,
annex 1). This request made by the British Minister
on the instructions of his Government had been re-
jected by the Spanish Council of State after study
(see document 2, Reproduction of BritishDocuments).
The fact that the request had been made proved that
England had not had rights of sovereignty; people did
not request the transfer of rights which they already
possessed.
66. In 1847, a trade and navigation treaty had been
signed between Guatemala and Great Britain and on
that occasion the British negotiator, Mr. Chatfield,
had been informed that the instrument in no way
affected the rights of Guatemala to Belize and that
those rights, inherited from Spain, had invalidated
the concessions which had been the subject of an
agreement between Spain and England in 1786,
67. In 1850, the parties to the Clayton-Bulwer
Treaty, signed at Washington between the United
States and the United Kingdom, had undertaken not to
occupy, fortify, colonize or assume or exercise any
dominion over any part of Central America,
68, In 1859 the Anglo -Guatemalan Convention relating
to boundaries was signed in Guatemala, .Actually, that
Convention concealed a cession of territory by Guate-
mala in exchange for compensation provided in ar-
ticle VII. The wording of that compensation clause
was somewhat ambiguous, but fortunately Guatemala
possessed the authentic interpretation of the Con-
vention provided by Mr. Wyke, the English negotiator
himself, who, on the very day the Convention was
signed (30 April 1859), stated in his report that
England possessed no legal title and explained the
compensatory nature of article VII (document No. 3,
Reproduction of British Documents, annex 1).
69, For more than a century, Guatemala had urged
successive British Governments to respect the com-
mitments entered into under the Convention of 1859,
but in vain. Inthefaceofsuchan attitude, the Congress
of Guatemala confirmed, in Decree No. 224 of 9 April
1946, that the Convention was invalid.
70. The former concessions granted by Spain to
England had expired on the day on which the inde-
pendence of Central America had been proclaimed.
The Central American Republic had acceded to inde-
pendence, free of any obligations contracted by the
metropolitan country, in accordance with the basic
principle of public international law, res inter alios
acta (see note by Mr. Marcy, United States Secretary
of State, dated 26 July 1856, in W. R. Manning, Diplo-
matic Correspondence of the United States: ~Iit'e'r­
American Affairs, 1831-1860, vol. VII (Washington,
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1936),
pp. 146 and 147).
71. Obviously, the 1859 Convention did not put an end
t0 the territorial dispute/ over Belize between the
United Kingdom and Guatemala. For more than a
century, efforts were made to settle it in accordance
with international law. It would take too much time
and indeed be fruitless to describe those efforts in
detail. However, it was worth noting that the United
Kingdom and Guatemala, since the Conference of
Puerto Rico in 1962, had sta~ed and recognized that
Belize was a territory in dispute and had agreed to
settle the dispute by the peaceful means laid down in
Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, Several
series of talks had taken place in Washington (1963),
Miami (1964) and London (1965), during which, thanks
to the good offices of the United States, the two parties,
the United Kingdom and Guatemala, had decided, in
the presence of many inhabitants of Belize, headed by
Mr. George Price, who was assisted by Mr. Goldson,
to submit the historic dispute to mediation, a solution
which had the endorsement of the inhabitants of Belize.
As stated in paragraph 3 of the working paper prepared
by the United Nations Secretariat on the dispute con-
cerning sovereignty over the territory (A/AC.109/
L.394):
"The Premier of British Honduras, Mr. George
Price, is reported to have informed the House of
Representatives on 29 October 1966 that mediation
would continue until such time as the mediator felt
able to formulate proposals which he hoped would
prove acceptable to all parties to the dispute."
The parties had decided to request the Government of
the United States, an impartial Power friendly to both
countries, to act as mediator,
72. The United States Government had accepted the
role of mediator and a special court was set up to
deal with the international dispute. The Department
of State instructed Ambassador Bethuel Webster, an
eminent legal authority, to deal with the matter and
the two parties each communicated to him their
respective terms of reference. Under those terms of
reference Mr. Webster worked diligently to achieve
formulre capable of settling the dispute, with due
regard to the interests of the people of Belize, The
United Kingdom and Guatemala conformed to the
spirit of the United Nations Charter by collaborating
with the mediator and by negotiating the disputed
points in their respective cases. Those talks made
considerable progress. The meeting of Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom and Guatemala,
organized at the suggestion of the mediator, Mr.
Webster, took place in London in July 1967, There
emerged from it agreement on numerous basic points,
due account being taken, of course, of the interests of
the people of Belize.
73. In view of the nature of the mediation and the
constant negotiations on the viewpoints of each of the
parties, it was decided at the outset of the mediation
that the result of the preliminary negotiations and the
documents emerging from them would remain strictly
confidential until the mediator submitted his proposals,
For that reason, they were not made public and he
could not communicate them to the Committee. For
the same reason, the documents quoted by Mr. Goldson,
and in particular those which according to Mr. Goldson
had been published by the Daily Express and The
Times, were spurious and had no authenticity what-
soever. Similarly, any documents which Mr. Goldson
said he possessed on the final plans for a treaty were
false and highly suspect,
 1719th meeting- 15 November 1967
74. The United Kingdom and Guatemala, acting in
conformity with Article 2, paragraph 3, ofthe Charter,
which stipulated that the Members of the United Na-
tions should settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international
peace and security, and justice, were not endangered,
had voluntarily submitted their historical dispute to
mediation. However, Guatemala felt that, since the
question concerned its sovereignty, the United Nations,
in conformity with Article 2, paragraph 7, of the
Charter, could not intervene at present, because the
question without any doubt came essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction of Guatemala.
75. For all those historical and legal reasons, his
Government formally requested the Committee not to
comply with the request of Mr. Goldson. To act
otherwise would be to violate' the fundamental prin-
ciples of the United Nations Charter and might also
have unfavourable consequences for the mediation by
which the parties were trying to settle the dispute
in a manner satisfactory to them both and to promote
the well-being of the people of Belize.
76. His delegation expressed once again formally
and explicitly its reservations concerning its legiti-
mate territorial rights to Belize.
77. Mr. MALECELA (United Republic of Tanzania),
speaking on a point of order, said that at the 1718th
meeting it had been agreed that the Committee, after
hearing Mr. Goldson, would not hear statements by its
members on the question of British Honduras until it
took up the relevant item of its agenda.
78. Mr. MOLINA URENA (Dominican Republic),
speaking on a point of order, requested, in view of
the importance of the question under study and the
significance it might have for the subsequent work of
the Committee, that the statement made by the repre-
sentative of Guatemala should be reproduced in extenso
in the summary record.
79. The CHAIRMAN said that if there was no objection,
the statement by the representative of Guatemala
would be reproduced in full in the summary record of
the meeting.
It was so decided.
80. The CHAIRMAN said that although the Committee
should adhere to what had been agreed at the previous
meeting, as Mr. Malecela had asked, he wished to
give the floor to the representative of Honduras,
because the item was of direct interest to his country.
81. Mr. LOPEZ VILLAMIL (Honduras) said that the
validity of Guatemala's claims to Belize was obvious
if one considered the historical context in which the
United Kingdom had penetrated into Central America.
Historically, Central America was a whole shaped by
Spanish civilization, which had been introduced into
the area in the sixteenth century. That Spanish civili-
zation, itself the result of very varied influences, had
been characterized by a progressive and universalist
outlook, hostile to any racial or ideological discrimi-
nation. For example, slavery had been abolished in
that part of the world in 1824, well before it had been
abolished in the United States, Russia and many other
countries.
257
82. The independence of the new Central American
Republics, however, had been followed by a situation
of political instability, of which the United Kingdom
had taken advantage in order to penetrate into areas
which under the treaties signed before independence
had been indisputably subject to the sovereignty ofthe
Spanish Crown. The policy followed by the United
Kingdom with regard to Belize was comparabletothat
which had led to the annexation of former Spanish
territories in other parts of the world, such as
Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). As
early as 1816, the United Kingdom had tried to get
control of Belize by placing the Mosquito Indians who
lived in the area under its protection and proclaiming
a chief of the tribe whom it had given the name of
George Frederick "King of the Mosquito Coast and
Nation". There had indeed been a "Mosquito Coast",
but it had never been politically separate from the
rest of Central America. Later, George Frederick's
successor, Roberto Charles Frederick, appointed
Alexander MacDonald before his death as Regent of
the Mosquito Nation and the United Kingdom had
strengthened its protectorate, not without extending
the frontiers of the territory. Lord Palmerston had
stated at the time that the Mosquito Kingdom would
be recognized as an independent State under United
Kingdom protection. The Wyke-Aycinena Treaty,
signed on 19 April1859, had recognized part of Belize
as United Kingdom territory, but on the express condi-
tion that the United Kingdom build a road linking Guate-
mala City to the Atlantic. Since that condition had
never been fulfilled, the Treaty could be considered
null and void, Shortly afterwards, on 28 November
1859, the Wyke-Cruz Treaty had established full
Honduran sovereignty over the area occupied by the
Mosquito Indians in Honduran territory and, on
28 January 1860, Great Britain had signed the Wyke-
Zeled6n Treaty with the Government of Nicaragua,
which had established Nicaraguan sovereignty over
the area occupied by the Mosquito Indians within that
country's territory.
83. In general, the historical and legal background
to the occupation of Belize by the United Kingdom
showed that its claim to the country was invalid. Belize
was quite obviously an integral part of Central
America. As the representative of Guatemala had
already pointed out, 40 per cent ofthepopulation were
of Mayan Indian origin.
84. The petitioner had complained that the attempt at
mediation at present in progress was being conducted
in secret and that the people of the territory were
not being consulted. But it was only to be expected
that an attempt at mediation should be handled dis-
creetly and that the proceedings should not be made
public until some result had been achieved.
85. In conclusion, he stated that on the question of
Belize his country fully shared the views of Guatemala.
86. Mr. LUARD (United Kingdom), speaking in exer-
cise of his right of reply, stated that contrary to what
the representative of Guatemala had said, his Govern-
ment considered that its sovereignty over British
Honduras could not be questioned, since it had been
established by treaties signed a century before.
Mr. Goldson, whom the Committee had heard earlier
in the meeting, had mentioned the fact that the United
258 General Assembly - Twenty-second Session - Fourth Committee
Kingdom had proposed to Guatemala that they should
submit the matter for arbitration to the International
Court of Justice and that Guatemala had declined the
offer.
87. After consulting the representatives of the
people, the United Kingdom had initiated an attempt at
mediation, which was at present in progress. The
lengthy discussion taking place in the Committee
therefore seemed a little out of place, as the repre-
sentative of Guatemala had himself recognized,
88. The petitioner, Mr. Goldson, had said that the
people of British Honduras were not consulted enough
about their future. The United Kingdom rejected that
assertion, because there had in fact been constant
consultations and quite recently the Prime Minister
of British Honduras had undertaken to ask the people
to make known their views on the results of the
mediation.
89. The United Kingdom was now ready to grant
independence to British Honduras, Transfer of the
Territory to Guatemala had not been contemplated at
the Constitutional Conference held in 1963 in order to
decide the future of the Territory and nothing had
changed since in that respect. At all events, the future
of British Honduras depended on the wishes of the
people and not on historical or legal considerations.
90. Mr. DEBRAH (Ghana), supported by Mr. NKAMA
(Zambia), suggested that the discussion on the ques-
tion of British Honduras should be suspended and
resumed when the Committee took up the relevant item
on its agenda.
91. The CHAIRMAN said that he accepted the Ghanaian
representative's suggestion, which was in line with
what the Committee had agreed at its 1718th meeting,
but that he wished nevertheless to give the floor to the
representative of Mexico, since his country was a party
to the dispute.
92, Mr. PEON DEL VALLE (Mexico) said that his
country was not a party to the bilateral dispute
between Guatemala and the United Kingdom. He
wished to make it clear that as soon as it had con-
sidered it necessary to do so, Mexico had reserved
its historical and legal rights to the Territory of
Belize. Its reservations were to be found in documents
of the United Nations and of the Organization of
American States.
Litho in U.N.
93. Mexico's position on the matter was based on
respect for the existing treaties, without prejudice to
the principle of self-determination of peoples.
94. It had been his impression that what the Com-
mittee had decided at the previous meeting in con-
nexion with the question of Belize was that it would
confine itself for the time being to hearing the peti-
tioner. Accordingly, he had done no more than state
Mexico's general position very briefly, so that it might
be duly taken into account.
Requests for hearings (continued)
REQUEST FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
STUDENT NONVIOLENT COORDINATING COM-
MITTEE (AGENDA ITEM 24)
95. The CHAIRMAN said that he had received a
letter dated 13 November 1967 from the Chairman
of the Special Political Committee transmitting a
letter of 2 November 1967 from Mr. James Forman
of the International Affairs Commission of the Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), In the
letter Mr. Forman asked for a hearing concerning
agenda item 24 ("Activities of foreign economic and
other interests which are impeding the implementa-
tion of the Declaration on the Granting oflndependence
to Colonial Countries and Peoples in Southern Rho-
desia, South West Africa and Territories under Por-
tuguese domination and in all other Territories under
colonial domination and efforts to eliminate colo-
nialism, apartheid and racial discrimination in
southern Africa"), as the representative of a non-
governmental organization and a participant in the
International Seminar on Apartheid, Racial Discrimi-
nation and Colonialism in Southern Africa, held at
Kitwe, Zambia.
96. He proposed that the letter from the Chairman
of the Special Political Committee and the enclosed
letter from Mr. Forman should be circulated as a
Co.mmittee documentY and that Mr. Forman's request
for a hearing should be considered at the next meeting.
The petitioner had stated that he would be prepared
to make his statement before the Committee at any
time convenient to it.
The meeting rose at 6. 35 p.m.
lJ Subsequently circulated as document AfC.4f699.
77401-November 1968-2,350