United Nations

GENERALASSEMBLYTWENTIETH SESSION

Official Records @FroSt COMMITTEE, 1401st

MEETING

Wednesday, 8 December 1965,

at 10.50 a.m.

NEW YORK

CONTENTS

Agenda item 107:

The inadrrdssibility of intervention in thedomestic affairs of States and the pro-tection of their independence and sovereiÿnty(continued)General debate (continued) ............

Page

283

Chairman: Mr. KSroly CSATORDAY (Hungary).

AGENDA ITEM 107The inadrnlssibi[ify of intervention in the domestic

affairs of States and the protection of their inde-pendence and sovereignty (continued) A 597 .

and Corr. 1, L.351, L.352, L.353 and Add. |)

GENERAL DEBATE (continued)1. Mr. SEATON (United Republic of Tanzania) saidthat the ideal of a universal international society

based on freedom and justice and bound togetherby ties of co-operation and concern for the general

welfare had gradually brought about the eliminationfrom international life of such practices as piracy,slavery, capitulations, the forcible collection of debts,and colonialism. None of them had been eliminatedwithout a struggle, and some had subsequently returnedin different guises. Nevertheless, progress had beenmade, particularly after the emergence into inter-

national life of the Latin American nations, which hadjoined in the struggle with vigour and dedication.2. The Asian-African Conference, held at Bandungin 1955, had provided an opportunity for concertedaction against some of the grosset evils still persistingin international life. As a result of that conference,the World had recognized colonialism to be a cruel andselfish form of exploitation, a fact reflected in theDeclaration on the granting of independence to colonialcountries and peoples adopted by the General Assemblyin its resolution 1514 (XV). Intervention was a constantthreat to the newly independent countries. It had beendefined as "forcible action of some type taken in theinterference with the affairs of a State by anotheÿState, by several States, or by a collectivity ofStates,, and as such was a violation of internationallaw and of the United Nations Charter. In recentYÿaÿs such violations had occurred with increasing

' "frequency, and the international community was having

difficulty in dealing collectively with them.3. At the present time two areas of the World werethe subject of grave concern. In Viet-Nam, thearrangements agreed on at the 1954 Geneva Con-

terence1-/ had been ignored, and the welfare of thelocal population and their right to choose their ownform of government were more and more being dis-

regarded. In the Dominican Republic, armed forceshad. occupied the country, and were still present,

causing widespread alarm in Latin America and therest of the world. In both those areas the internationalcommuni[y had to face a situation in which increasingdisrespect was being shown for law.

4. It was the duty of the First Committee to examinethe principles of international law from the viewpointof international morality. He therefore welcomed theUSSR draft resolution (A/C.1/L.343/Rev.1), and theadditional texts and amendments which had beensubmitted. In view of the Security Council's inabilityto play its appropriate role, it was vitally important

to reaffirm the rights and duties of every sovereignState. The artificial basis for membership of theSecurity Council had led to paralysis, with the resultthat important discussions and negotiations were heldoutside the United Nations. Although ample evidencecould be found to show that there was an increasedsense of international responsibility for the difficultiesof other nations, vigilance was needed to ensure thatthe major Powers did not yield to the temptationof assuming roles that had no justification either inthe Charter or in international law.5. The Tanzanian delegation had reservations with

regard to certain of the drafts before the Committeewhich did not conform to internationally acceptedprinciples. In particular, it did not consider assistanceoffered to oppressed peoples struggling againstcolonialism and apartheid to be a form of intervention,either direct or indirect. That view had been upheldat the Second Conference of Heads of State orGovernment of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Cairoin October 1964. A consensus of the views of thep;rticipating countries could be found in the declaration

that conference entitled "Programme for Peaceand International Co-operation,. The draft resolutionsubmitted by the United Arab Republic (A/C.1/L.353)faithfully reflected those views, and the delegation ofTanzania had therefore agreed to become a sponsor(A/C.1/L.353/Add.l). He hoped that all delegationswould be able to support it.

6. Mr. KISELEV (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re-

public) said that by proposing the inclusion in theagenda of the item under discussion the Soviet Unionhad demonstrated once again its sincere desire forpeace. The Byelorussian delegation considered thata threat to the peace arose whenever one State

Geneva Conference on the problem ofrestorin • -held from 16 June to 21 July 1954. . gpeacem Indo China,

283A/C.1/S'R.1401

284General Assembly -- Twentieth Session -- First Committee

interfered in the internal affairs of others, par-ticularly when armed force was used. Military inter-ference, however, was not the only form of imperialistintervention, which was sometimes masked as ec-onomic assistance or help in the settlement ofdisputes surviving as a legacy of colonialism.

7. In recent years the imperialists had carried outaggressive activities against the Congo, activitieswhich had caused bloodshed and plunged the UnitedNations into serious difficulties. In addition, the UnitedStates had intervened in Cuba. Much had been saidat the Assembly's current session on the subject ofimperialist activities in )/iet-Nam, and the UnitedStates had been criticized for assuming the roleof an international gendarme. The statements on thatsubject made before the General Assembly amountedto a collective condemnation of the United States by

the majority of mankind.

8. Nevertheless, the United States was persisting inits criminal policy inViet-Nam, showing no willingnessto negotiate on the lust terms proposedby the NationalLiberation Front of South Viet-Nam and the Govern-ment of the Democratic Republic of North Viet-Nam.Representatives of the United States had tried towhitewash their activities and to shift the blame; butthey would not succeed, for the facts were therefor all to see. The war againstthepeople of Viet-Namwas doomed to failure. The puppet regime of Saigonhad no popular support and relied solely upon UnitedStates armed force. South Viet-Nam had been dottedwith prisons, concentration camps and strategichamlets in an effort to suppress opposition to thepolicies of the puppet government. Nevertheless, thestruggle by the National Liberation Front went on,and already it controlled three-quarters of the ter-

ritory of South Viet-Nam.

9. The war in Viet-Nkm was rapidly becoming aUnited States war against Asians. There could be nojustification for the bombing raids carried out onNorth Viet-Nam; the support for the National Libera-tion Front of South Viet-Nam came from the peopleof South Viet-Nam and not from outside. A distortedversion of the causes of the war had been repeatedin the Committee by the allies of the United States;in that connexion, he referred to the statement by therepresentative of Australia, whose Government hadsent troops to Viet-Nam and was training further

battalions for the same purpose.

i0. The escalation of the war was a threat to thewhole world. The ÿnly solution was for the UnitedStates to carry odt the terms of the 1954 GenevaAgreements, to cease raids on North Viet-Nam,to withdraw all foreign troops from South Viet-Nam,to end all outside interference and to allow thepeople to decide their own affairs. Instead, it appearedthat the war effort was to be intensified, makingViet-Nam into another Korea. The Byelorussiandelegation believed that all aggressive acts shouldhalt, not only in Viet-Nam but in other regionswhere interference was still taking place.

troops to crush the uprising and to preserve themilitary rÿgime which protected United States in-terests in the Dominican Republic. All progressivepeoples were united behind the Dominican people,which must ultimately triumph. The House of RePre-sentatives had subsequently approved a resolutionauthorizing the United States to intervene Unilaterallyin any Latin American country, which had arouseda storm of protest and had been condemnedboth bythe Mexican and the Colombian Senates. The factsshowed clearly who was the guilty party in the recent

increase in tension.

12. The policy of interference, was particularlydangerous to the newly independent countries whichwere attempting to develop their economies and toliquidate the vestiges of colonialism. But for inter-ference by certain Western Powers, Angola, Mo-zambique and other colonized territories would notstill be enslaved. Without outside support, apartheidand the racist rÿgime in Southern Rhodesia couldnot survive. For that reason the Byelorussiandelega-tion supported the draft resolution submitted by theSoviet Union (A/C.1/L.343/Rev.1); the draft declara-tion embodies the principles contained in Article 2,paragraph 4, of the Charter. The Bandung, Belgradeand Cairo Conferences Lad all decided that it wasessential to reaffirm the importance of the principleof non-intervention. The adoption of the draft declara-tion would provide all peoples with a further means of"defending their freedom and independence. Repre-sentatives who had attempted to minimize its im-portance had done so because they feared that theGeneral Assembly would condemn their acts of inter-vention. He fully agreed with the representatives ofAfghanistan and the United Republic of Tanzania thatsupport given to a people struggling for freedom andindependence could not be regarded as interference.

13. The representative of the United Kingdom hadprotested against any approach to the problem thatrecognized the existence of two kinds of States.Unfortunately, it was a fact that two kinds of Statesexisted: those which obeyed the principle of non-intervention, and those which did not. The Soviet draftwas a realistic document, dealing with an urgentquestion of the day. The doubts expressedby the repre-sentative of Thailand as to its value were regrettable;but fortunately they were not shared by the majority.It was the Committee's duty to take action to preventintervention in the domestic affairs of States and to

protect their independence and sovereigntY. He there-fore called upon all delegations to support the Soviet

draft resolution.

14. Mr. BOUATTOURA (Algeria) said that the SovietUnion deserved thanks for raising the question of theinadmissibilitY of intervention in the domestic affairsof States, for the matter was an important one whichhad a significant bearing on the current serious

international situation.

15. The principle of non-intervention had long beenrecognized as essential to world stability, and it wasthe key-stone of the Charters of the Organization of

....... ÿ ..... ÿ,ÿ Aÿh States, the

<

'ÿ ......... ° ......... ÿa, ÿ'ÿ principle of non-

intervention had been most frequently violated bythe very Powers which had done most to legitimizeit; whenever it was a question of protecting theirselfish interests, they formed an alliance againstthose who were legitimately defending their sover-eignty. The systematic violation of the principle ofnon-intervention by certain Powers had not left thevictims indifferent; it hadbeen condemned by theAfrican, Asian, Latin American and non-alignedStates atthe Bandung, Belgrade and Cairo Conferences,thus focusing world attention on the need to preventfurther violations.

16. The principle of non-intervention implied theunequivocal condemnation of all intervention, whetherovert or covert, military, political or economic.Military intervention was, of course, the easiest todefine: it included wars of conquest and reeonquestand direct intervention such as had taken place atStanleyville and in the Dominican Republic.

17. Political intervention, although more subtle,was equally dangerous. Many States had concludedthat it was more advantageous to control anothercountry indirectly than to occupy it physically, forby that means they procured the benefits of colonialismwithout its attendant expenses and responsibilities.That policy led to the creation of spheres of influencecomposed of States which were legally independent butpolitically dependent.

20. An analysis of the conflicts resulting from

foreign intervention showed that they were alwayscaused:y the desire of an imperialist Power to main-tain iÿ influence in the country concerned. The

conflict in Viet-Nam was the most characteristicexample of that process. Instead of being helped torecover their national unity, as the 1954 GenevaAgreements had provided, the Viet-Namese peoplehad witnessed increasing intervention intheir internal

affairs, culminating ia a direct confrontation betweenthem and the armed forces of the United States.

21. Respect for the principle of non-intervention wasessential to international peace and security. TheUnited Nations should therefore set itself the task ofeliminating colonialism, nee-colonialism and im-perialism, which created the conditions that gaverise to intervention and constituted an obstacle topeaceful coexistence and international understandingand co-operation.

22. Mr. SHALLOUF (Libya) said that the question of

the inadmissibility of intervention in the domesticaffairs of States was one which should have beenconsidered by the United Nations 10ng ago, and theSoviet Union was to be congratulated for havingproposed its inclusion in the agenda of the currentsession.

. i,ÿ

18. Political intervention often took the form ofeconomic -assistance designed to ensure control of theessential sectors of the national economy. The politicalauthorities of the country thus controlled becamethe prisoners of foreign interests. The developingcountries, by reason of their economic under-develop_

ment, were particularly vulnerable to that type ofintervention by economically stronger States. Neo-colonialism, which thus combined indirect politicalcontrol with economic exploitation, was the mostheinous form Of colonialism. Yet there were a fewcases in which a just relationship had been establishedbetween an industrial country and a developingeountry,

to their mutual benefit.

19. It was not enough, however, to define and condemnintervention. Attempts had recently been made to

justify acts of intervention on the pretext that theywere a response to previous intervention. Tÿt wasrelated to a crucial aspect of the current internationalsituation, namely, the opposition of certain imperialistPowers to wars of national liberation. Suchwars werejust and constructive and deserved the support of theinternational community, for they enable peoples toWin their freedom. As, however, they oftenthreatenedPowerful foreign interests, the Powers affected in-tervened to crush the national liberation movements,which they accused of being based on subversiveeÿternal support. Such intervention, and the false

Political doctrine on which it was based, should becondemned. A people could not be accused of sub-versive activity because it wished to exercise itsnatural right to independence. Those who opposed warsof national liberation were in fact rejecting all thendamental principles of the United Nations Charter

aaci COndoning the continuance of colonial and neo-

Colonial domination.

23. Throughout history, the law of the jungle hadprevailed in international affairs, and his countryhad itself been a victim of colonialism. Libya believedthat the freedom of individuals and States shouldbe respected. Since it had won its independence ithad supported and carried out the principles of theCharter and the basic principles of international law;it was thus morally committed to non-intervention.

His delegation therefore supported the Afghan repre-sentative's proposal that the sponsors of the variousdraft resolutions and amendments before the Com-mittee should meet and try to agree on a single text,and would give its views on any conclusions reached

in that respect at the proper time.

24. Mr. ASTROM (Sweden) said his delegation be-lieved that the Assembly's twentieth session, whichwas taking place during International Co-operationYear, would be an appropriate occasionfor Member

States to reaffirm their faith in the principles of theCharter and their willingness to observe them intheir international relations. It therefore welcomedthe Soviet Union's proposal that the Assembly shouldadopt a declaration on non-intervention in the domesticaffairs of States, which was one of the most important,principles of the Charter. The Soviet initiative wasindeed a timely one, for almost all the major problemsdiscussed in the United Nations in recent years hadbeen related to some aspect of that principle, and aclearer definition of the concept of intervention wasneeded, as hadbeenpointed out by the Swedish Ministerfor Foreign Affairs in his statement to the GeneralAssembly at the nineteenth session (1319th plenarymeeting).

25. Sweden attached great importance to the principleof non-interventioh, as was preved by its statements inthe Sixth Committee and the Special committee onPrinciples Of International Law concerning lÿriendlyRelations and Co-operation among States, and believed

i¸ !ÿ

i:ÿ,, /}

i

,! '!

,' ,:i

'1 !ÿ;

' I

i, :i!

I !

]

!,

Session -- First Committee ' I'286 General Assembly -- Twentieth

that it should be accorded a prominent place in any

general declaration of rededication to the Charter.It should not, however, form the subject of a separatedeclaration, for the principle of non-intervention wassupplemented and supported by other principles ofthe Charter which gave it meaning and substance--forexample, those relating to the prohibition of thethreat or use of force, the rightto self-determination,and the obligation to abide by international treaties.It was also related to the Charter pledge of inter-national co-operation in the economic and socialfields with a view to raising levels of living indeveloping countries. A well-balanced declarationwould take all those considerations into account; itwould not alter or abridge the obligations contractedunder the Charter, and would make it clear that thecharter still constituted a valid code of behaviour

in international relations.

26. The declaration might begin by recalling thattwenty years had passed since the establishment ofthe United Nations and that during those years theemergence Of many new states and their admissionto the Organization had brought that body closer tothe desired goal of representing all mankind. It couldstate that international developments during thoseyears hadfurther emphasized the need for internationalco-operation in the preservation of peace and forunderstanding between the permanent members ofthe Security Council so that the United Nationsmight indeed serve as an effective peace-keepinginstrument. The declaration might record some of theOrganization' s achievements and state that disregardfor the principles of the Charter had caused frictionbeteen States, world tension, misery and bloodshed.It could reaffirm the right to self-determination,independence and equality and point out that everyState was under an obligation to respect those rightsand to facilitate their exercise. It could confirm thatcolonialism in all its forms must be brought to aspeedy end, and support that principle by stating thatthe threat or useÿ of force against the territorialintegrity or independence of another State constituteda serious violation of the Charter. It could continueby affirming that it was the duty of all States torefrain from interfering in the internal affairs ofother States, either directly or indirectly, eitherovertly by the use of force or covertly by fosteringcivil strife. Intervention was particularly dangerousto newly independent States seeking to shape theirfuture, and should be categorically condemned. Thedeclaration could add that all countries were underan obligation to settle their disputes by peacefulmeans and to co-operate with a view to promotingrespect for human rights and fostering social,

' economic and cÿltural progress in all parts of theworld. Lastly, the declaration might stress the needto meet international obligations in good faith andto make the United Nations a centre for harmonizing

the action of all nations.

27. If the General Assembly was to adopt such adeclaration, he hoped that it would be one that wouldwin wide support and, if possible, be adopted unan-imously. His delegation had no intention of submitting............... 1ÿ ÿ÷ ÿhÿ nresent staÿe; it would

dÿscribed. It believed that it had detected someinterest in such a declaration in previous statements,and if that impression was confirmed it would beprepared to co-operate with other delegations indrafting a text that would obtain general support.

28. Mr. PAYSSE REYES (Uruguay) said that hisdelegation welcomed the debate on the item beforethe Committee as an important contribution to thecause of peace and to the implementation of theprecepts enshrined in the Charter. Uruguay, whichfor 'a hundred years had been neither a victim nora perpetrator of intervention, was unalterably opposedto interventionist policies of any kind, and it hadcontributed, in co-operation with other AmericanStates, to the formulation of the most explicit anti-interventionist provisions in international law.

29. The purpose Of the present debate should notbe to pass judgement on the question of responsibilityfor past events but to adopt constructive measureswhich would prevent any repetition of the kind of actswhich the Committee was unanimous in condemning.If certain Members wished to point an accusingfinger at others, their own qualifications for sittinginjudgement would have to be examined and it wouldbecome apparent that there were few among them,not even the smaller States, who were wholly

blameless.

30. His delegation had decided to join in sponsoring*the draft resolution in document A/C.1/L.349/Rev.1

and Add.1 for a number of reasons. Firstly, it wasbased on the Latin American concept of non-interven-tion. It was in Latin America that the principle ofopposition to any intervention in the affairs of States,individual or collective, had first been enunciated.That principle was laid down in article 15 of theCharter of the Organization of American States.Secondly, the Latin American draft resolution wasthe broadest and most complete of the drafts sub-mitted. Thirdly, it had the best prospects of adoption,since no additions, deletions or changes had beenproposed. Finally, its adoption Would constitute apositive response to the hopes of peoples throughout

the world.31. Uruguay' s anti-interventionist policy followedfrom its conviction that peoples should have theright of self-determination, a right which would benullified if any State was allowed to try to imposeits philosophy, institutions and customs on another.Uruguay was in favour of peaceful coexistence, butthat meant that no nation should try to make othersconform to its ideas. If representative democracy

• tried to convert the adherents of Marxism and theMarxists thought they had the right to try to sovietizethe democratic camp, coexistence would cease andtheworld would be plunged into war. Today even religions,without abandoning their positions on matters ofdogma, were proclaiming their desire to abide by theprinciples• of peaceful coexistence in their relationswith each other; the more reason to apply the sameprinciple to political relations, which in their essenceexcluded considerations of dogma.

32. Uruguay was profoundly concerned over thevarious forms of intervention currently being prac-

(,i

nts,i be

hisorethetheichlor:edadan:i-

ot

y,ÿS

;S

,ÿ.

gn

F

wu,ÿ,,ÿ w uvo1<ea a defensive reaction and mobilizedthe nations of the world in support of the victim andin condemnation of the aggressor. There was anotherform of intervention which was much more dangerousbecause it was hidden and corrosive. He was referringto economic intervention and to the practice offinancing political parties and the Press, radio andtelevision in foreign countries and infiltrating theireducational systems. His delegation would have likedto see those means of intervention specifically referredto in whatever draft declaration might be adopted.It was, of course, in the nature of democracy that

within democratic countries some citizens shouldbe able, provided that they did not violate the nationallaws, to try to mould the thinking of others even inways foreign to national tradition. Intervention fromabroad, however, was entirely inadmissible, if nationswere to live at peace with each other. Why should thedemocracies have to endure what no other tYpe of

.r6gime would accept? Why should fhey have to allowtheir own resources to be used to finance politicalforces or other movements within their territory?His delegation hoped that with further study of the

question a more complete formulation could beevolved.

33. Mr. LEKIC (Yugoslavia) said that his delegationwelcomed the decision of the Soviet Government torequest the inclusion in the agenda of the item beforethe Committee, for its consideration was of particularsignificance at a time when the international situationwas characterized by increasingly frequent resortto the use of force and the infringement of theindependence and sovereignty of States. The Com-mittee's objective should be to adopt a documentreaffirming the basic principles of the Charter andcalling on States to carry them out. The establishmentof the United Nations had reflected not only mankind,saspiration for peace but also its awareness of theinterdependence of nations; the Charter provided anideal instrument for the co-operation among all peoplesWithout which none of them could progress. Themajority of Member States had consistently advocatedthe strict apPlication of the Charter,s principles, ashad the countries participating in such major inter-national conferences as those held at Bandung,

Belgrade, Addis Ababa and Cairo.34. The post-war period had been characterized bya constant struggle between the forces that werestriving by political, military, economic and othermeasures to prevent the development of internationalrelations on the basis of respect for the Charter,and the constantly growing forces of peace, whichwere opposed to the arms race, the cold war andthe remnants of colonialism and nee-colonialism_inother Words, to all forms of inequality and to violationsof the principles of self-determination and the inde-

pendence and territorial integrity of all countries.The roots of many post-war crises lay not in theabsence of clearly defined principles but in therejection of all that was new and progressive, in thefailure of some States to understand that a newinternational Pattern had emerged as a result of theemancipation of many former colonies and to realizethat the existence of nuclear weapons made it im-

perative to reject war and the use of force as aninstrument of policy. War and the policy of force were

287indeed unacceptable even to the peoples of countrieswhose Governments were resorting to them.

35. Among the major political problems which hadplagued the post-war period was the survival ofcolonialism in various territories. Another problemwas the constantly widening difference in levels ofeconomic development between the developed andthe developing countries,ÿ a situation which wasbeing USed by certain Slates for the purpose ofexerting economic pressure and intervening in theinternal affairs of other countries. Certain Powerswere trying to as cribe to national liberation movementsfeatures and characteristics that would provide abasis for their suppression. Attempts were also beingmade to interfere in the affairs of other countries

precisely on the pretext of upholding the principlesof the Charter. There were some who were arrogatingto themselves the right forcibly to prevent other

peoples from choosing their own social and politicalsystems and to obstruct their struggle for liberation.Yet experience proved that neither the threat or useof force nor intervention of any kind in the affairsof other States had solved major international

problems; on the contrary, they had only aggravated

them and created new problems.

36, Armed forces and economic pressure had alsobeen used in various parts of the world to preventpeoples from exercising their right to political andeconomic emancipation. Moreover, attempts had beenmade to give those activities an international sem-blance and represent them as measures of collectivedefence against subversion. However, nuclear weaponsand the present interdependence of countries hadcreated a situation in which armed intervention couldhave catastrophic consequences. At the present timethe ÿ¢orld's attention was concentrated on Viet-Nam,where approximately 200,000 foreign soldiers equippedwith the most modern weapons were engaged inconstantly expanding military operations. The ter-ritory of an independent sovereign State--the Dem-ocratic Republic of Viet-Nam--was being bombed andcertain circles were demanding that the war should beintensified and extended even beyond the borders ofViet-Nam. That war, which was in the interests ofneither the Viet-Narnese people nor those who wereresponsible for it, was imperilling peace throughoutthe world and at the same time hampering the

solution of other international problems.37. The people of Yugoslavia, who had won theirindependence in a struggle which had cost nearly 2million human lives, understood the significance ofthe struggle of ÿhe people of Viet-Narn and othercountries for ÿheir emancipation. Yugoslavia wasconvinced that that struggle could, not be stifledwhatever the means used against it, for it involvedbroad national movements, the readiness of peoplesto make the greatest sacrifices and the inexorablemarch of history. Only the peoples fighting fortheir independence had the right to choose the waysand means of waging their struggle, and it wasincumbent upon freedomaloving peoples everywhereto give them moral and material assistance. Nocountry could arrogate to itself the right to assesswhat was in the best interests of another people anddecide whether subversive activities were being

288 General Assembly .-- Twentieth Session -- First Committee

carried on in a particular country, so that it couldintervene unilaterally, on the basis of its own inter-pretation of the Charter and against the will of thepeople involved. The method of "solving disputes"practised in Viet-Nam today must be firmly resistedby all mankind. A solution to the Viet-Namese conflictcould be found only through negotiations on the basisof the 1954 Geneva Agreements and in harmony withthe legitimate aspirations of the Viet-Namese people,which were exPressed exclusively by the NationalLiberation Front.

38. The struggle for peace, freedom, progress andthe implementation of the Charter knew no geo-graphical, ideological or other frontiers; the Charterwas in fact an expression of awareness of therealities of the modern world. For that reason, inter-vention could not be justified on ideological or anyother grounds, and a policy based on intervention wasthe direct product of obsolete conceptions about thenecessity of maintainingpreviously acquired positions.The retrogressive policy of intervention was doomedto failure, for it was in direct opposition to the legit-imate aspirations of peoples and their right to leadan independent life and determine the course of theirinternal development. Intervention in a country'sinternal affairs could bring only tragedy to thepeoples against whom it was directed, while to thosewhose Governments were pursuing such a policy itcould bring only isolation from the other peoples ofthe world. The experience of the past twenty yearsshowed that existing differences and problems couldbe settled only by strengthening peace, by encouragingco-operation among all States and peoples on thebasis of equality of rights, and by applying theprinciples of the Charter.

39. Mr. BARNES (Liberia} said that the importanceof the question of non-intervention in the domesticaffairs of States was demonstrated by the fact thatboth the Sixth andthe First Comraittee were discussingit at the current session. Thus there was already aconsensus, both juridical and political, that theprinciple of non-interventioninthe internal or externalaffairs of States was the foundation of harmoniousrelations among States and the corner-stone of thestructure of world peace. International law pro-hibited intervention in the affairs of States becauseit affected the independence and territorial integrityof the victims and thus posed a clear threat to theirpolitical and economic development. The inadmis-sibility of intervention and the obligation of allStates to respect one another's sovereign equalitywere key features of the United Nations Charter. One ofthe sources of cÿnfliet at the present time was theattempt of certain States to coerce others, by politicaland economic pressure, into adopting their politicalor ideological systems. Each State had the inherentright to choose its own national way of life free fromexternal pressures, intrigues, infiltration and sub-version, and to judge for itself whatkind of societyWould best serve the needs and interests of itspeople. It was therefore intolerable that any Stateshould intervene in the internal affairs of anotherRÿnÿ tn ÿn.ÿ ÿn ÿliÿn ÿv nÿ 1"iÿ

ground and reaffirmed one of the oldest principlesknown to international law. Such a reaffirmation wasnecessary, because failure to respect the politicalintegrity and sovereign equality of States continued tobe a major cause of friction. At the regional level,the Organization of American States, the Bandung,Belgrade and Cairo conferences, and the Organizationof African Unity had all denounced intervention inthe affairs of States; and the principle of non-intervention was indeed one of the corner-stones ofthe Charter of the Organization of African Unity.Thus the Committee's task was to clarify alreadyestablished principles; and he thought it could begreatly assisted in that task by a working group, ashad been suggested by the representative ofAfghanistan.

41. It Was important to bear in mind that interventionwas not a secondary but a primary cause of war.The events that had set off both world wars hadresulted from intervention. The First World Warhad broken out when Serbia had refused to agree tothe demand that an Austrian judge should try theassassin of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand on Serbianterritory--which would have been a gross violationof its national sovereignty. The prelude to the SecondWorld War had been Hitler's intervention in theSudetenland and Austria. Today the world was witness-ing Indonesia's threats against the territorial integrityof Malaysia. It was thus clear that intervention wasa form of aggression which led inexorably to war.In the two world wars, however, no attempt had beenmade by the aggressors to justify their intervention,whereas today high principles were being invoked asa pretext for that form of aggression.

42. The most comPlete manifestation of interventionwas colonialism, which was an intrusion into the mostvital aspects of the lives of other peoples. He usedthe word "peoples" advisedly, because there was atendency to think of intervention chiefly in termsof interference by one State in the internal affairs ofanother. Actually, it was the impact of intervention onthe lives of peoples which made it not only a juridicalissue but a political and moral issue of the highestorder.• Intervention was thus more than a violation ofthe rules governing the relations of States; what itamounted to was the domination of one people byanother, and it therefore constituted a challenge tothe most fundamenta! principles of human rights.

43. There was a tendency on thepartofsome Powersto think of the world as a stage on which they wereacting out a drama of the struggle between goodand evil. Yet it was not those Powers but usually thesmaller Powers which were the victims of theresulting acts of aggression. Thus the whole questionof intervention became a confrontation between thegreat and the small Powers. It was in terms of thatdivision rather than exclusively interms of ideologicaldivisions that the whole problem should be approached.The truth of that assertion could be seen from thefact that within each ideological camp the strongwere encroaching on their weaker and smaller allies;