SECTION A
DOCUMENT FILED BY THE AGENT
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF CAMEROUN
SECTION A
DOCUMENT DÉPOSÉ PAR L'AGENT
DU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE
FÉDÉRALE DU CAMEROUN CAUEROUSSEPTESTRIOSAL
XATIOXS UNIES
DOCUMENTS OFFICIELS DE L'ASSER.IIIL~?EGÉXI?KALE
QUIN%Il?ME SESSION (SECONDE PARTIE)
QUATHIÈME COMMISSIOX, TUTBI.1.E
Comptes rendus analytiques des séances '
(A/C.~/SR.IO~~ à 11j4)
II@ SÉ~\SCE. IlARuI 18 AVRIL I~GI
Pace 38 j
Poi~zl13 de l'ordredu jour
Rapport du Conseil de tutelle (A/4404) (suite).
Avenir du Cameroun sous administration du Royaume-Uni (1\/4695,
AI4699. A172G.A/4727, A/C4/448. 479. 481. 482. 486, 457, hlCqlL6S4,
L/GSg),suite.
Page387
18. M. FOKSYTHE (Australie) estime, comme d'autres orateurs qui
l'ont précédé, que I:iquestion dont la Commissioii est saisie ne doit pas
ètre considéréecomme un différendentre certains l',ta& Membres. Il
ne s'agit pas d'appuyer l'une ou l'autre des partics en présence. La
délégationaustralienne entretient les meilleures relations avec toutes
les parties directement intéresséeset elle espèreque rien de ce quiaura
étédit au cours du présentdébat n'y portera atteinte.
Page 388
27. La délégationaustralienne estime que le projet de résolution
A/C.4/LGSqest rétrograde. Le temps n'est plus d'examiner si les fins
essentiellesdu régiirieinternational de tutelleont étéréaliséesdans le
territoire.
Pace 389
31. M:ASSF.LIN(Canada) pense que la façon dont l'autorité adminis-
trante a administré le territoire ne peut entrer dans le cadre du présent
débat.
Page 390
40 -\IKESSEDY(Irlande) ... Si l'.Assembléeécartait les concluSi0ns
du rapport du commissaire elle risquerait de décevoir les espoirs des
peuples encore dépendants qui se tournent avec confiance vers I'Orga-
nisation des Nations Unies et voicnt en elle uii instrument de leur
libération.
-
Voir 113'2et nus95,98.99 etror,p. 482-485 Page 401
Poiizt 13 de l'ordredu jour
Rapport du Conseil de tutelle (A/14o4) (suite).
Avenir du Cameroun sous administration du Rovanme-Uni ~AI, ,A".
A/46gg3 A14726, AI4727. A/C.4/448. 479. 457, 482,*486. 4S7, 490, 493.
494, A/C.4/L.684/Rev.1, L.685 et Add.1) (suite).
Page 40.7
20. U TIX MAU KG (Birmanie) ... Les imperfections et déficiences
constatées bien qu'inhérentes :ila situation ne sont pas à l'honneur de
l'autorité administrante. La délégation birmane comprend les raisons
qui ont poussécertains Etats Jlernbres àcontester lavalidité du plébiscite.
Elle estime toutefois qu'il faut décoilragertout effort, si bien intentionnb
soit-il, qiii viserait à prolonger le régimede tutelle en Afrique occidentale.
Ce serait faire un pas en arrière que <l'adopter le projet de résolution
A/C.~/L.~S~/R~XT.Ié , tant donné qu'il lie précise mêmepas a quel mo-
ment la population sous tutelle pourrait accéder à l'iiidépendance ...
Page 404
21. &Ille KAMAL(Irak) déclare que l'ère de la domination coloniale
touche à sa fin et laisse derrière elle des problèmes qu'elle a créés.
Les difficultés résultant du démembrement du Cameroun ont été
étudiées de très près par l'Assemblée générale. En application des
résolutions 1352(XIV) et 1473 (XI7) de 1'.4ssembléegénérale,des
plébiscites distincts ont eu lieu dans les parties septentrionale et méri-
dionale du territoire; dans le sud 70'% des élccteiirs ont voté pour
l'union avec le Cameroun, alors que 60% des électeurs qui ont voté
dans le nord se sont proiioncéspour l'union avec la Nigéria.
22. Il ne semble as aue les résultats enregistrés au Cameroun méri-
il!~i:::il ri,1,itIi. I.'iif.,i.;i,iip (1.r.iitii,\.~.riIliII<,ticI:,.~~~~~~~~~~~i(.ii
;,IIi.iiti1~11<I<.I,CII~II,I~,iIe. IC rr,.r,.,ioi~CI!IIII'. p;~,''1,I:LYCII~
1: I'IIIII~:, 1 I~llii \iiii .tiii~ruiiii1..iiI&IP:.,tiL~iir.ihitiiric
comprend les sentimen'ts de'la minorité, mais elle estiGe que les vmux
de la majorité doivent êtrerespectés. En revanche, pour ce qui est du
Cameroun septe~itrional, des représentants de la République du Cameroun
ont formulé de sérieuses accusations touchant le déroulement du pl&-
biscite. La délégationirakienne est heureuse de constater qu'il n'y a
pas de différend en l'occurrence entre le Cameroun et la Xigéria, et elle
espère que ces deux pays continueront de coopérerdans l'intérït de leur
bieii-être comniun et du bien-ètre des peuples africains. Le représentant
du Cameroun a affirmésa confiance à l'égarddu commissaire des Nations
Unies,au plébiscite, et en dernière analyse, c'est sur le rapport du com-
missaire que tout jugement doit reposer. II est manifeste que la situation
au Cameroun septentrional laissait h désirer à certains égards. Le pro-
cessus de démocratisation, dont la délégationirakienne a étéun ardent
avocat, n'a éti mis en train que quelques mois après le plébiscite.
Page 406
44. M. GEBRE-EGZY(Ethiopie) ...Malgré lescritiques dont il a fait
l'objet. le groupe des pays d'Afrique et d'Asie a toujours défendu le43z CAMEROUN SEPTENTRIOSAI
principe de l'indépendance immédiate. Le rôle de 1'O.X.U. n'est pas de
portefun jugement sur ceux qui sont au pouvoir dans un territoire, mais
simplement d'aider ce territoireà accéderà l'indépendance.
Page 408
63. M. YOMEKP (Ghana) ..Certains considèrent que les paragraphes6
et 7 du dispositif de la résolution1473 (XIV) de l'Assembléegénérale
n'ont pas étéeffectivement appliqués. Ils ont déclaréque l'organisation
et la conduite du plébiscite au Cameroun septentrional n'avaient pas
toujours été cohérentes et convenables.
Tout en comvrenant les difficultés auxauelles s'est heurtée l'autorité
administrante, M. Yomekpe se demande's'il était sage et correct de
conserver dans le Cameroun sevtentrional un nombre considérable de
ressortissants d'un pays quiétas l'une des parties intéresséesaux résul-
tats du plébiscite.
Il se demande aussi si le Royaume-Uni peut prétendre que les insti-
tutions du Cameroun septentrional ont étécomplètement démocratisées.
En effet, il n'est pas vraiment démocratique d'avoir des autorités
locales dont les membres sont désignés,surtout lorsque ces autorités
locales constitueront les organes législatifsdu territoire qui négocieront
la forme q~e -rendra l'association avec la Nigéri...
64. Malgré lesdoutes que l'on peut avoir ou les plaintes que l'on a pu
formuler, l'Assembléegénérale estobligéed'appuyer la décisiondu com-
missaire au plébiscite.Le Ghana, comme les autres petits pays du monde,
a placé toute sa confiance dans 1'O.X.U. et c'est dans cet esprit qu'il
appuyera les recoinmandations faites par ses membres.
Page 409
M. CHA~T (Iunisie).
72. Lc commissaire aux plébiscites a fait de l'excellent travail; avec
les mauvaises conditions politiques et matérielles qui régnaient et dont la
responsabilité incombe uniquement à l'autorité administrante, il ne
pouvait faire mieux. Le problème de la séparation administrative du
territoire et de la Nigéria, la présence de fonctionnaires nigériens et
certains aspects du déroulement proprement dit du plébiscite étaient
des questionsqui dépassaient sa compétence.
Néanmoins, il a fait tout ce qui était en son pouvoir pour inciter
l'autorité administrante à mettre en euvre les recommandations de
l'Assembléegénérale;son intégritéet l'impartialité dont il a fait preuve
sont dignes de 1'O.N.U. En dépit des lacunes de la consultation, sur les-
quelles il n'a pas hésité appeler l'attention dela commission, le com-
missaire aux plébiscites a concluquc les résultats du plébiscite sont une
expression fidèle de la volonté populaire. Il est important qu'il soit
Parvenu à cette concliision, mais son jugement n'engage absolument pas
mêmesde la mêmequestion.sion, qui ont maintenant à décider pour eux-
73. En divisant l'ancienne colonie allemande en deux territoires
distincts, confiés respectivement à la France et au Royaume-Uni, la
Société desXations a encouragé les deux autorités administrantes à
semer les germes du partage. Le fait que le Royaume-Uni ait constaté
deux tendances différentes dans la population, l'une favorable à la
Nigéria et l'autre Ace qui est maintenant la République du Cameroun,n'a rien pour surprendre: il est déji arrivé ailleurs qu'un territoire situé
entre deux autres ait étéinfluencé par ses voisins. La responsabilité
du Royaume-Uni en ce qui concerne ia situation actuelle commence au
moment où il a assimilé le territoire à la Nigéria, et il a aggravé ce fait
en accordant aux régions méridionale et septentrionale des régimes
différents dans le cadre même de i'administration nigérienne. Cette
différenciation s'explique sans doute par des raisons impérieuses, mais il
est indéniableque cette politique a influencél'opinion publique en faveur
de la Nigéria. Par voie de conséquence, au moment d'organiser le plé-
biscite, la différenciation entre les trois parties du Cameroun était
devenue un fait établi, admis par tous, notamment la mission de visite
et 1'O.N.U. qui a tenu compte dans toutes ses décisions de cet état de
choses.
Page 410
74. Passant au plébiscite proprement dit, le représentant de la
Tunisie déclare que le commissaire des Nations Unies aux plébiscites,
grice à sa vigilance et aux pressions qu'il a pu exercer sur l'autorité
administrantc, est parvenu à assurer les garanties matérielles indispen-
sables. L'autorité administrante a affirméà la commission qu'elle a fait
de son mieux pour rendre la séparation entre la Nigéria et le Cameroun
se~tentrional effective : en fait. c'esten raison de certaines défaillancesde
actuelle contestés. Le repr&entant de la ~un~isiese demande si les
fonctionnaires du Royaume-Uni, sur place, ont pleinement mesuré l'im-
portance de la tâche qui leur était confiéeet la responsabilité qui retom-
berait sur leur pays et sur 1'O.X.U. dans le cas d'un échecdu plébiscite.
Il est vrai que les imperfections sont courantes dans des opérations
électorales et que leur somme ne constitue pas un facteur suffisant pour
entacher la régularitédes résultats. La délégationtunisienne estime que
l'opération doit êtrejugéedans son ensemble et que le plébiscite témoigne
dans l'ensemble de plus de régularité que de défauts. Xéanmoins, la
commission aurait pu éviter le débat actuel si l'autorité administrante
n'avait pas étécoupable de certaines déf 11Iances.
115ze SEANCE , ERCREDI 19 AVRII. 1961
Point 13 de l'ordre dujour
Rapport du Conseil de tutelle (A/qqoq) (suite)
Page 414
II. M. G~ssou (Togo) ...11est faux de dire que toute criticlue des
méthodes d'administration du Royaume-Uni rejaillira nécessairement
sur I'O.N.U., car si l'organisation n'a pas toujours pu, dans le passé,
défendreles intérêtsdes peuples dépendants et plus particulièrement des
peuples sous tutelle, c'est en raison de l'influence prépondérante des
Puissances coloniales. Cette sitiiatiou a pris fin, il faut di1moins l'espérer,
à partir du moment où l'équilibre des forces s'est renversé à 1'O.N.U.
au détriment du club colonial.434 CAXEROUN SEPTEXTRIOSAI.
13. La Société desXations puis 1'O.X.U. oiit confiéau Royaume-Uni
un mandat sur uii territoire et ensuite l'administration de ce territoire
sous tutelle, mais le lioyaume-Uni présente aujourd'hui à la commu-
nauté internationale deux territoires, ou plutôt deux inorceaux d'un
mêmeterritoire, qui a étédivisé, désintégréet spoliépar la force colo-
niale.
On ne peut justifier cette politique en disant que les deux parties du
territoire sous tutelle sont liabitées par (les populatioris totnlemeiit
différeiitesqui ne peuvent constituer les élémentsd'iiiie entité nationale,
car la mêmesituation existait dans tous les territoires qui sont devenus
récemmeiit des Etats africains. Le problème ne résulte pas, en fait, de
différencesentre tribus; il s'agit bien plut& d'une politique systématique
de l'autorité aclininistrante qui n'a jamais respecté l'intégritéet la per-
sonnalité des territoires placés sous son admiiiistratioii. De tous les
territoires placés soiis tutelle internationale,seiils ceux qui ont été
confiésau Royaume-Uni ii'ont jamais pu accéder ?Ll'indépendance en
conservant leur personiialité juridique. Par contre, l'ancienne Somalie
sous administration italienne, le Cameroun oriental. le Togo oriental et
d'anciennes coloiiies, qui n'étaient pas plus importantes économiquement,
démographiquement et géographiquement que les territoires placéssous
administration britaniiiqiie ont pu obtenir l'indé1~endaiicetout en gar-
dant leur intégrité territoriale. Kien ne s'opposaitonc i ce qu'il en soit
de mêinepolir le Cameroun sous administratioii britannique. On en
vient ainsi à se demander s'iln'aurait pas étéprofitable que les territoires
placés sousla tutelle du Royaume-Uni restent de siinples colonies, d'au-
tant plus qu'ils n'oiit pas bénéficié pleinemeiit des dispositions de
l'alinéa b de l'article76 de la Charte. Il existe, en effet, au Cameroun
septentrional 97% d'analphabètes et il est impossible de trouver dans ce
territoire des autochtones capables d'étre policiers, fonctionnaires ou
mtme de diriger les opérations d'un bureau de vote.
14. Tout ceci ne signifie pas que la délégationtogolaise soit hostile
à l'accession à l'indépendance du Cameroiin sous administration britan-
nique. La position de la délégation togolaiseà cet égardest parfaitement
connue et restera fonction des principes foridamentausqui lui sont chers.
15. Le repr6sentant du Togo rend hommage au <lévoiiementdu com-
missaire des Kations Uriies aux plébiscites. Il estime que le régime de
tutelle devrait prendre finà la mêmedate daiis lcs deux parties du terri-
toire.
16. M. ACHKAK (Guinée) rappelle que l'option fondamentale de la
République de Guinéeest essentiellement une option africaine dont les
principes clefs sont l'indépendance et l'unit6 airicriines. Sa délégation
examinera la (1uestionà l'ordre du jour du point de vue et dans les
perspectives de l'évolution future du continent africain. SECTIONB
DOCUMENT FILED BY THE AGENT FOR THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
SECTIONB
DOCUMENT DÉPOSÉ PAR L'AGENT DU
GOUVERNEMENT DU ROYAUME-UNI DE
GRANDE-BRETAGNE ET D'IRLANDE DU NORD SOHTHEHS CA>IEROOSS
UXITED SATIOXS, TRUSTEESHIP COUSCIL
TWEXTY-EIGHTH SESSIOS, OFFICIAL RECORDS
1178th Meetirig, II Januarv 1962 '
(TISR. 1178)
Presideizt: hIr. Jonathan 13.I31~cHabr(United States of America)
Present :
The representatives of the follo~vingStates: Australia, Uelgiurn, IJoli-
via, China, France, India, New Zealand, Union of Soviet Socialist
Re~ublics. United liin~dom of Great Britain and Sortherii Ireland.
~6ted states of Amcri&.
The represeiitatives of thc follo\ring specialized agencies: Inter-
national Labour Oreanisatioii: United Sations Educational. Scientific
and Cultural 0rganiGtion; \~&ld Health ~rganization.
Examiiiation O/petitiorcs(ï'l1j841Add.1 and Corr.~,
T/C.Z/L.~~I)
[Agenda item j]
1. Sir Hugh FOOT (United Kingdom) pointed out tliat docuniciit
T/1j84/Add.r and Corr.1 listed a iiiiinber of petitions concerniiig thc
former Trust Territories of Tanganyika and the Cameroons urider United
Kingdom administration. Although he realized that the petitions in
question had ariseii from circumçtrrnces preceding the accession of thosc
Territories to indeperidence, it mould obviously be nrrong for the Council
to deal ivith theiii. for in so doing it would be guilty of interference in
tlie affairs of independent States.
2. He \vas aware of the Indian delcgation's concern about the petitions
from t\vo groups of Taiigrinyika civil servants and \vas ready to inake
inquiries into the matter ancl inform the Indian delegation. oiitside the
Council, of the position as it noiv stood. He wished to make it clear that
he had not raised tlie point of principle in an attempt to avoid giving
information about tlie resiilts of the discussions which liad t:ikeii place
between the groups of Tanganyika civil servants in question and the
Governments of Taiigzinyika and the United I<ingdom.
3. He thereforc siiggcsted that thc Council should decide not to (leal
with the petitions from Tangriiiyika and the Camcroons and to postpoiie
consideration of the otlier petitions uiitil its tweuty-ninth session.
4. '\Ir. BHADI<AYK,\(IIIiidia) said that he full? agreed that tlie Trus-
teeship Council slioiild not concern itself with the affairs of former Trust
Territones after they Iiad acceded to independence. Tliat argiiment
did not apply. ho\ve\,cr, to certain obligations assumed by the Admiiiis-
tering Authority towards groups of civil servants before a particular
' Filed on27 August 1963. SeeSos. S6 and go, pp.477 and 450 [Sote by fhc
Rcgislrj. DOCUhIENT SUB>IITTEIl BV THE U'IITED I<IIIGDOhl
437
Trust Territory attained independence. The fact that the groups of
Asian civil servants in question had continued to be employed in Taiigan-
yika was purely fortuitous: the point at issuewas that they had suddenly
been faced with an abrupt and premature termination of their career
and had not hecn treated bv tlie Administering Authority in the same
manner as other groups of expatriate civil servants.
j: Tlie proper course for the Council \vas tu deal witli tlie matter as
business left unfinislied at its previous session. In particular, lie would
dran thc Coiincil'sattention to General Assembly resolution 1646 (XVI),
which, he rinderstood, had been adopted unanimously. He would also
rccall that at ttie 116jth meeting of the Fourtli Committee the United
Rincdom re~rcsentativc had esuressed the lio~e that tlie matter raised
by Che peticioners would be eq;itably conc1;ded within the following
week. It was a rnatter of re~ret tliat the United Kinpdom representative
aas unahle to give the ~oÜncil any information on whethir or not an
equitable settlement liad been reached. On the other harid, the Council
Iiad before it two cables, from the Tanganyika Overseas Kecruited Asian
Government Servants' Union and the Tanganyika ilsian Civil Servants'
Association respectively (T/PET.z/z4g/Add.1 and T/PET.z/q8/Add.2),
informing tlie Secrctary-Gencral that the Administering Autliority Iiad
refuscd to implement General Assembly resolution 1646 (XirI).
6. His delegation wûs not asking the Council to take any action or
decision in the matter, since the Council aas no longer competent to do
su. On the other liand the Uniteil Kingdom rcpresentative in the Fourth
Coirimittee Iiad given a clear assurance, and an obligation assumed in
the past was not cancellcd out by Tanganyika's accession to inde-
pendcnce. Any other interpretntion would in effect mean putting a prc-
mium on delay or inaction.
7. Tlie lcast the Administering Authority coiild do was to iiiforni the
Council of precisely what had occurred at the talks betwcen tlie repre-
sentativcs of the Asian civil servants and the Governmcnts of Tanganyika
and tlie United Kingdom, of tlie difficulties that liad been encountercd
and of the reasons why the groups whom the petitioners reprcscnted
liad beeii given diffcrent treatmcnt from that accorded to certain other
groups of expatriate civil servants. The Council should also be told
what action had heen taken by the Administering Authority following
the negotiations or, if no action had been taken, tlie reason for such
inaction. Altliougli constitutionally, in a certain limitecl sense, the Ad-
ministering Authority nriglit have shed its responsibilities with regard
to the point at issue and might be entitled to raise procedural objections
to tlic inclusion of the petitions in the zigenda, he liopcd that the Council
would agree that tlie petitions rcpresented unfinislied business for which
the former Adininisteriiig Autliority continucd to hcar responsihility.
8. In other respects lie rrgreed with the United Kirigdom rcpresenta-
tive's suggestion that the petitions coiiceniing the former Trust Terri-
tories of the Cameroons and Tanganyika under United Kingdom admin-
istration should not be considered in siibstance. He also agreed that tlie
consideration of the remaining petitions should be postponed until the
t1venti~-ninth session of tlie Council. DI-ovidedthat the Detitions from
~uanda-~rundi werc considered in thekourtli Committee àtthe resumed
sixteentli session of the General Assembly.438 SORTHERK CAMEROOSS
g.,>Ir.OBERE~IK(O Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that while
he did not object to the suggestion that the substance of the petitions
relating to the former Trust Territories of the Cameroons under United
Kinsdom administration and Tansanvika should not be considered bv
tli~:?viiiicilIic reg:irdeci the Iiirtlicr siiggectioii tli;it soiisidcrn~ofn
a11tlic otlit:r ptctitioiisstiuuld bc postl~oiicrltli?i!r.ent!,-iiintli scision
of the i:oiincilns ;ilto~~:tliçrun;i<:cer,t;,t.Itlic Council w:ii iinnblc to
consider those petitions at its twenty-eighth session,it should refer them
to the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly.
IO. With regard to the procedural aspect of the examination of
petitions, he would point out that the Administering Authorities were
violating both the United Nations Charter and the rules of procedure
in that they had not supplied written comments on the petitions.
II. He agreed with the Indian representative that the Administering
Authority had shown disrespect towards the Council in failing to supply
information concerning the iniplementation of General Assembly reso-
lution 1646(XVI). It was true that the Council was no longer entitled
to consider matters concerning Tanganyika now that the latter had
become a sovereign State. That. however, was not the point at issue.
What wasin question was the former Administering Authority's attitude
to decisions taken by the Trusteejhip Council and the General Assembly
which it had actually supported with its vote. That was yet another
example of the manner in whicli the colonial Powers, alter voting in
favour of United Nations resolutions, either failed to implement them
or took steps to impede their implementation.
12. With reference to the substance of the petitions before the
the Trust Territory of Ruanda-Urundi. A study of those petitionsrning
showed that, in the last analysis, al1 the misfortunes experienced by
the indigenous inhabitants of that Trust Territory had been the result
of the work of the colonial authorities. The petitions raised important
issues which should be considered when the question of the future of
Ruanda-Urundi \vas taken up in the Fourth Committee at the resumed
sixteenth session of the General Assembly. A satisfactory solution
should be found to the grievances of the petitioners, within the context
of the liquidation of Belgian colonialism in Ruanda-Urundi and the
immediate accession of that Territorv to indeoendence. In the circum-
stances, hesupported the Indian rep;esentativé's suggestion that al1 the
petitions concernin~:Ruanda-Urundi should be referred to the Fourth
13. With reference to the petitions concerning the Trust Territory
of Kew Guinea, he felt that the Administering Authority should inform
the Councilof the situation with regard to the issuesraised in documents
T/PET.8/16 and T/PET.8/17 so that the Council could take whatever
steps were necessary to defend the interests, and even the very lives, of
the petitioners.
14.Su Hugh Foor (United Kingdom) agreed with the Indian and
USSR representatives that al1 petitions concerning Ruanda-Urundi
might be referred to the Fourth Committee for consideration at the
resumed sixteenth session of the General Assembly, it beingleft to that DOCUMENT SUBlIITTED BY THE UXITED KIXGDOM
439
Committee to decide whether some of theni sliould he considered at
the twenty-ninth session of the Trusteeship Council.
Ij. With reference to the petitioners from Tanganyika, he would
make further inquiries and inform the Indian representative of his
findings.
16. Mr. HOOD(Australia) agreed with the suggestion made by the
United King.om representative as amended hy the Indian representative.
17. With reference to the two petitions from New Guinea, he reminded
tlie USSR representative that his delegation had already stated both in
the Council and in the Standing Committee on Petitions that theevcnts,
referred to in the petitions had occurrcd in the Territory of Papua and
not in the Trust Territoriv of New Guinea. and therefore did not come
within the province of thé Trusteeship Council. Consequently, the Ad-
ministering Authority reserved its position with regard to the classi-
fication of-those~etitions. Furthermore. lie would state arain. for the
information of the Council, that the death sentences referred to in the
petitions had been commuted to terms of imprisonment of three years.
18. hfr. RHADKAMKA(R India) said that, %,hilehe thanked the United
Kingdom representative for his assurance, he felt that the only appro-
priate step for the Adrninistering Authority would be to report on recent
developments to the Council and not to tlie Indian delegation. The latter
could not accept a report on the matter since the Indian Government
was not concerned with it. His interest arose from India's membership
of the Council. \Vith that reservation, liis delegation accepted the
United Kingdom representative's suggestion.
19. Mr. SALIMANCA (Rolivia) said that the Indian dclegation's point
of view was correct. since the obligation in question had arisen hefore
Tanganyika's accession to independence. Having received the peti-
tioners, tlie Council had assumed jurisdiction in the matter. Had the
petitioners requested to appear before the Council at the present stage,
after Tanganyika's accession to independence, he would have agreed
with the position taken hy the United Kingdom representative. In the
circumstances, however, he felt that the Administering Authority should
supply the Council with information on recent developments in the
matter.
zo. The PRESIDEXTsaid that if there were no further comments he
would consider the United Kingdom proposa1 to be adopted.
21. Mr. BACON(United States of America) pointed out that if that
proposa1 were adopted there would remain to be discussed at the twenty-
ninth session a petition concerning the Trust Territory of tlie Pacific
Islands (T/PET.Io/~~). Although, in his delegation's'view, the petition
was not one that should be accepted, his delegation would nevertheless
have no objection to its being examined at the twenty-ninth session.
22. MI. BHADKANKA(R India) asked whether the President, in referring
to the United Kingdom proposal, had intended to include the obser-
vations made by thc Inàian, Boiivian and USSR deleglitions to the effect
that tlie report should be made to the Council and not to the Indian
delegation.
23. The PRESIDENT said that he had understood the United KingdomNo XORTHERS CA.\IEROOXS
proposa1 to refer solely to the examination of petitions and not to the
provision of the information requested by the lndian delegation.
24. Sir Hugh FOOT (United Kingdom) confirme6 that his proposa1
had not iiicluded the provision of information in regard to Tanganyika
or the Camerooiis formerly under United Kiiigdom administration. He
remained of the opiiiion that the Council sliould notcal1for information
or seek actioii on petitions from Territorics w'liichIiad achieved inde-
penderice. He felt tliat to do so would constitiit;id;iiigerous precedent.
25. Mr. I~HI\I>I<~\LIK (ndRia) recalled tliat the United Kingdom
representative had uiidertaken to furnish information to the delegation
of India \\rith regard to those petitions from Tanganyika to which he
had referred. He Iiad supported the United I<iiigdom proposal on that
understanding. ancl had added that he felt that the information should
be furnished not to his delegation but to the Triisteeship Council. As
the Bolivian representative Iiad very.clearly esplained, the submission
of sucli information \vas a residual obligation arising from the time wheii
the Council had specifically exercised jurisdiction in the matter.
26. He emphasizecl that hr: was not discussing the affairs of Tangan-
yika, which w:is now an independent country: the State of Tangan-
yika did not ciiter into the ùiscussion at all. It was untortunate that
the United Kingclom delegation had not suhmitted the iiiformation in
question before l'aiiganyika had attained independciicï. but the fact
that it had iiot dorie so did not alter the fact that an obligation had
not heen hoiioured. The United Kingdom dclcgation had never argued
that no obligation esisted; during the discussions nt an earlier session
of the Trusteeship Council and again in the Geiieral Assembly it had
appeared to accept an obligation in the matter. Indeed, if the United
Kingdom liad not done so it would not have held confereiices and ar-
ranged forthe petitioners and'otbers to meet in London. He deplored
the attitude taken by the United Kingdom delegation that because of the
delav which had occiirred the obligation had ceased to esist. He could
not agree with the United Kingdom representative tliat there could
be any danger iii the petitions' being considered by the Council. The
position woul<lbe diflererit if they were new petitions, but that was not
the case. He therefore hoped that the Council would reqiiest the United
Kingdoin Govcrrinient to furnish a report to it regardiiig the petitions
in question.
27. Sir Hugli FOOT(United Kingdom) recalled tli;it when the Fourth
Committee had approved resolution 1646 (XVI). lie Iiad undertaken,
as the representative of the Administering Autliority, to report that
resolution to his Governinent, which he had done proinptly, and had aIs0
undertaken that the resolution would be taken into account in the
discussions and negotiations that had been proceeding at the time.
That also had been done. There had been no resolution calling fpr
a further report to the Fourth Committee or to the Trusteeship Council.
28. He reiterated tliat he thought it \vould be a mistake for the
Council to take new action on outstanding petitions from Territories
which had achieved independence. If the Council wislied to adopt a
resolution asking for a report on the subject, hisdclegation would be
obliged to oppose it becaiise he considered that it would be wrong in
principle. DOCUSIEKT SUBMIITED BI7 THE UXITED I<ISCDO>I 441
29. The representative of India had stated that his Government was
not concerned in the matter, but in reality it \vas and the United King-
dom delegation had taken account of that fact. The matter \vas one
with \\.hich many people niight be concerned, but it \vas not rightly a
matter for the Tmsteeship Council now that Tanganyika had achieved
inde~endence.
30 \Ir .S.\~:\>i:\sc.\ (I3ulivi,i) fclt i;iaver? i~iip~,rt:ilitpri~ici[)lc
K.I.; iiii.oli-cr,., rtr~rliicitiuii of rlli!h.intr.rpri.t:ititiii of tlic rigliti
ol i~ciition~is cleri\.iiir. fr:itinic \+heii ilil: :\aliiiiiii"ter~iie z\iitlior~t\~
ha2 been discharging~ts responsibilities in a Territory. In liis view tlie;e
\vas no question that those obligations and rights continiied to exist.
The information which had been requested related to the period during
mhich the Administering Authoritÿ had been fully responsible for tlie
Territory. The obligation of the United Kingdom \%,asnot towards the
cleleeation of India but to\vards the Trusteeshio Council. The United
l<ingdom had always scrupulously discharged 'its obligations aiid it
ivould be re~rettable if it should fail to do so in connection with a rela-
tively minoÏpoint.
31. Xlr. OBEREMKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Kepublics) pointed out
that while his delegation had agreed to the first part of the United
Kingdom proposal, to the effect that the Council should not examine
petitions dealing with Tanganyika and the Cameroons formerly under
United Kingdoni administration, and ivith the second part of the
proposal, to the effect that petitions relating to Ruanda-Uruiidi should
be examined by the Fourth Committee. it had urged that the remaining
petitioiis slioiild be examined by the Coiincil at its present session. In
particular he had put certain questions to the representative of Australia
regarding petitions relating to New Guinea.
32. Mrs. TENZER (Belgium) observcd thnt it tiad always bcen the
custom of tlie Council to examine petitions at the timc wlien conditions
in the Territory concerncd were being considered. Tliût procedure lind
the practical advantage tliat a special representative frorii the Terri-
tory was always present and she could see no renson why it should not
continue to be followed.
33. hfr.Hoou (Australia) said that his delegation had supported all
three parts of the United Kingdom proposal, one of which \vasthat three
petitions should be held over for conskieration at the twent
session of the Council. If a new proposal was now being put fo-wiihlrtd
that the petitions in question should be examined at the present ses-
sion, he would have more to saÿ on the subject.
34. The PRESIDEYTsuggested that it would facilitate the Council's
\\.ork if the United Kingdom delegatioii were to submit the three parts
of its proposai for separate consideration by the Coiincil.
3j. Xlr. SASKEY(United Kingdom) agreed to the President's siigges-
tion. The first proposal made by hisdelegation had been thatthe petitions
relating to Tanganyika and the Cameroons formerly under United
Kingdom administration should not be considered by the Council, in
view of the attainment of independence by those two 'rerritories.
36. 3Ir. BHADK.A?.~KA (IRdia) maintaiiied that the United Kingdom
deiegation had in fact made a proposal iii four parts: the first that the442 NORTHERN CAAIEROONS
Co~incilshould not consider ~etitions from the Cameroons and Tanaan-
r,ika. [tic sc.coridttint the p<!iitioiiicori<gii;inda-Uriiritlistiobcd
esnmined hy tlic Grner;il .\s;ciiil>ly in coiiiicctioii ivith its coiisidcration
of tlit: u.liole oiicstioii of t11;irTcrritur\,. the ttiirtl tliat ttie esaniiri:ition
of the rcrnhirii;igpetitions ~liibr tlefrrre<lto tlie t\vciit)-nintli sr~~ion
of tlic Council niid tlit fvurrtli:it tlUiiited I<iiigdom repre,eiitati\c:
India. His delegation had agreed to thoseproposaisowith the reservation
that it felt that the report should hefurnished not to the delegation of
India but to the Council. He ho~ed that the Council would aaree to
request the United Kingdom del&ation to inclide that point eifher as
a fourth pro~osal or as a rider attached to the first urouosal.
. . . .
conccrn of al1 members with regard to the Asian civil servants in the
Trust Territory OS Tanganyika, his delegation could not accepi the
argument tliat an Administering Authority had a responsibility to report
back to the Council once a Trust Territory had become independent. If
any such suggestion had been put to the vote as part of the General
Assembly resolution it would undoubtedly have been rejected, because
the General Assembly tiad at that time been well aware that Tanganyika
was about to become independent. If delcgations wished to pursuc the
matter further the proper procedure would be to inscribe an item on the
agenda of the General Assemhly. If, on the other hand, they merely
wanted to know for their own satisfaction what had been the result of
the consideration of the matter between the United Kingdom Govern-
ment, tlie Government of Tanganyika and the civil servants concemed,
the best way would he for the Council simply to take note of the assur-
ance given by tlie United Kingdom delegation that it would advise
delegations inforinally of the results of the negotiations between two
sovereign States.
38. The PRESIDENT pointed out that the question bcfore the Council
at the moment was a proposa1 by the United Kingdbm delegation
ttiat the petitions dealing with Tanganyika and the Cameroons formerly
under United Kingdom administration should not be considered hy the
Council.
Theproposal wns adopted.
39. Mr. SANKEY(United Kingdom) said that Iiis delegation's second
proposûl was that tlie petitions relating to Ruanda-Urundi should be
referred to the Fourth Committee for consideration.
Theproposal was adopted.
40. Mr. SANKEY(United Kingdom) said that his delegation's third
proposal was that the examination of the remaining petitions should
be deferred to the twenty-ninth session of the Council.
41. hfr. ~LIERE~Ko (Union of Soviet Socialist Repuhlics) objected to
the proposal to postpone to the next session consideration of petitions
which were included in the agenda of the present session. Since the
agenda (T/1584), together with the appended list of petitions subject to
examination (T/1584/Add.x), had already been approved by tlie Trus-
teeship Council,a proposa1not to examinecertain petitions at the present DOCUhlEST SUBIIITED BY THE UNITED KINGDOJI 443
session implied a revision of that decision. His delegation had put a
number of questions relating in particular to petitions concerning Xew
Guinea, and it considered that those petitions must be examined ivithout
delay. Even if it had been the practice of the Council, as the representa-
tive of Belgium had stated, to postpone consideqation of petitions until
the time when the aniiual report on the Territory concerned \vas being
examined, such a prnctice worild havc been wrong. Decisions relating
to petitions of a general character Iiad on occasion been postponed to the
time when the annual report ivas being esamincd, but thc petitions in the
present case related to thc fate of specific people. Ten inhabitants of
Xew Guinea had been sentenced to death; subsequently the Adminis-
tering Authority had stated that the death penalty had been commuted
to a three-year sentence. It was clear from the petitions, however, that
there was no evidence of the ~etitioners' miilt. and that \vas confirmed
by the fact that the senten& had beencommuted. The Trusteeship
Council must examine the petitions at its present session in order tliat
iustice mieht be done beforë it \vas too latë.
.+i.l'lie I'kilsiui~s~iuggcstc~drh:it iiivic\v of tliu 1:itenejsof the Iiuiir
tlic ('oun~ilsliould :,djoiirn:iii<resuiii~il;~iiiciissioi:ittticriest nieetiiig.
Tlle meeting rose at I p.m.
Documents soumis à la Cour après la fin de la procédure écrite (Règlement 1946, Article 48)