You will recall that the more important of the two resolutions on South West Africa which were approved by the General Assembly in January, solemnly appealed to South Africa to reconsider its position and resume negotiations with the Ad Hoc Committee. The resolution urged South Africa to report on its administration of the territory and transmit petitions from the South West African people to the United Nations. It also regretted that the Union of South Africa, while prepared to negotiate on the basis of certain articles of the mandate, was unwilling to carry out its international obligations with regard to the supervisory role of the United Nations. This resolution was carried by a vote of 45 in favour (including Canada), 5 against (the Soviet bloc), with 8 abstentions (including Australia, Belgium, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Turkey and the United Kingdom).

One important aspect of the debate was the Trusteeship Committee's decision to grant hearings to representatives of the Hereros and, when the South African Government prevented them from coming to Paris, to the Reverend Michael Scott who appeared on their behalf. South Africa insisted that the decision to grant these hearings was illegal. Canada abstained from voting on this issue in the Trusteeship Committee because we were undecided about the legality of the resolution. We thought too that it was impolitic for Canada, at such an early stage of the Committee's proceedings, to appear to stand firmly in the camp of the administering authorities. We also believed that the Committee was morally justified in seeking fuller information on local conditions because South Africa had shown unwillingness to submit petitions from the native peoples. Later, our Legal Division's opinion was that the Trusteeship Committee did not exceed its authority in passing this resolution to give a hearing to the Hereros.

In March, 1952, the reconstituted Ad Hoc Committee invited South Africa to appoint a representative to confer with it. South Africa informed the Committee that "its considered reply would be communicated in due course". Later, the South Africans told the Secretary of the Committee that they were studying their reply but, because of a heavy parliamentary programme, cabinet ministers had been preoccupied with other business. Up to the present time, South Africa has sent no considered reply and has appointed no one to confer with the Committee. It seems likely that it will not reply to the Committee's invitation before the General Assembly meets again.

A while ago, we learned confidentially that the United Kingdom has instructed its High Commissioner in South Africa to approach the Government there, pointing out that it was becoming difficult for South Africa's friends in the Commonwealth to support her at the United Nations, and it would be even more difficult for them to do so if some real progress were not made soon on the South West Africa question. Canada, of course, has already offended South African because we were the only white member of the Commonwealth voting for the "regretting" resolution. The United States offended South Africa too by supporting the same resolution. Before this happened, South Africa had been able to say that it had the support of "responsible and respectable" powers and was opposed only by "irresponsible and coloured" states.
The Secretary of the Ad Hoc Committee told a member of our Delegation in New York that, if the Committee had to submit a negative report, South Africa would be in for a very rough ride at the next General Assembly. A resolution much stronger than the "regretting" one might be introduced; it might "deplore" or even "condemn" South Africa's attitude. It is possible too that a resolution might be introduced, suggesting that a United Nations representative or commission be sent to South West Africa. The Reverend Michael Scott suggested this last year when he spoke to the Trusteeship Committee.

Canada has been disturbed about South Africa's intransigent attitude on this question and on the Treatment of Indians question. Unfortunately, the present South African Government has no respect either for its own constitution or for the United Nations Charter; neither does it consider the International Court's opinion on South West Africa an expression of international law. It is thought that the Canadian delegation will again vote against South Africa, unless it agrees to accept the minimal obligations which the International Court found still to exist with regard to South West Africa.

L.D. W[ILGRESS]