THE QUESTION OF RAGE CONFLICT IN THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

Transcription

1 CHAPTER XII QUESTIONS RELATING TO SOUTHERN AFRICA THE QUESTION OF RAGE CONFLICT IN THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA In a letter dated 6 August 1957, the representatives of Bolivia, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Sudan and Uruguay asked that the question of race conflict in the Union of South Africa resulting from the Union Government's apartheid policies be placed on the agenda for the General Assembly's twelfth session. On 3 September 1957, Ceylon joined them in making this request. The letter noted that, in disregard of the last Assembly resolution on the subject (1016(XI), of 30 January 1957), the Union Government had continued to adopt legislative and other measures in implementation of its declared policy of apartheid. In these circumstances, the letter concluded, the Assembly would undoubtedly wish to give the matter its renewed consideration in order to prevent further deterioration of the situation and to bring about a settlement in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. In the course of the discussion of this request in the General Committee, and later in the General Assembly itself, the representative of the Union of South Africa once again objected to the inclusion of the item in the agenda. He

2 QUESTIONS RELATING TO SOUTHERN AFRICA 99 referred to the detailed statement on the matter made at the previous session by the South African Minister of External Affairs and to the action taken by his Government after the inscription of the item on the agenda for that session (i.e., to maintain only a token representation in the future at meetings of the Assembly and at United Nations Headquarters). The South African representative confined his participation in the proceedings at the twelfth session to a formal protest against the continued intervention of the United Nations in the domestic affairs of South Africa. On 20 September 1957, on the recommendation of its General Committee, the Assembly decided to place the item on its agenda. It did so by a roll-call vote of 64 to 8, with 9 abstentions. The question was referred to the Special Political Committee which considered it between 21 October and 1 November During the general debate, the representative of India reviewed the relevant legislative measures recently enacted or proposed by the South African Government. She drew attention to three measures in particular. One was the 1957 Separate University Education Bill, the object of which was to enforce segregation on racial lines in the universities and to subject the higher education of African students to complete Government control. The second was the 1957 Native Laws Amendment Bill, which was designed to reduce social contacts between Africans and members of other groups to a minimum, and which could prohibit Africans from attending church services or functions within any urban area other than a native residential area. The Bill also authorized the Minister of Native Affairs to prohibit Africans from attending schools, hospitals and places of public entertainment. The third measure referred to by the Indian representative was the 1957 Nursing Act, which provided for segregation in the nursing profession. As further evidence of the policy pursued by the Union Government in disregard of human rights, the representative of India cited the arrest in December 1956 of 140 persons on alleged charges of treason. The failure of the South African Government to conform to its obligations under the Charter, she added, had compelled India to join with other Member States in bringing the matter to the Assembly's attention each year. Discussion in the Special Political Committee broadly reflected the division of opinion which had revealed itself at the Assembly's eleventh session. However, several delegations Argentina and Canada, for instance took a somewhat different view of certain aspects of the matter from that taken by them at the previous session. The majority of representatives who participated in the debate at the twelfth session maintained that the United Nations was competent to consider the question of race conflict in South Africa. That competence, they said, derived both from the Charter provisions dealing with human rights and fundamental freedoms and from the fact that the Assembly had considered the matter since Furthermore, the Assembly had repeatedly adopted resolutions condemning the racial policies pursued by the Union Government and calling upon it to reconsider its position and revise its policies in the light of its obligations under the Charter. The United Nations thus properly concerned itself with a situation arising from a policy of deliberate violation by a single Government of the universally recognized principle of respect for human rights and of that Government's continued failure to heed the Assembly's recommendations. The representatives of Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, the USSR, Yugoslavia and others thought that the United Nations should deal with the question of race conflict in South Africa because the apartheid policy pursued by the Union Government compromised its relations with other countries and thus endangered peace in that part of the world. Referred to in this regard were the implications of the apartheid policy in respect of developments on the African continent such as the emergence of new independent States. There was a possibility that the situation might degenerate into one threatening international peace. Opinion was considerably divided on the question of the action which the Assembly could properly and effectively take in order to discharge its responsibility in the matter and promote respect for human rights. Some representatives stressed the need for the Assembly to condemn the apartheid policy because it constituted a manifest violation of

3 100 POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS the provisions laid down in the Charter, the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the terms of previous Assembly resolutions. They thought the Assembly should take this stand regardless of the apparent failure of its previous resolutions on the matter to produce results. Others, emphasizing the moral influence which the Assembly's resolutions were bound to exert in the field of human rights, believed that there was merit in the reiteration of universally recognized principles. Several representatives felt that failure by the Assembly to perform an act of conscience, as represented by the adoption of a resolution, would injure the United Nations much more than the repeated failure of its resolutions to bring about a settlement. Some representatives who favoured the adoption of a resolution as evidence of the continued concern of the United Nations with the question of race conflict in South Africa, nevertheless had doubts as to the wisdom of resorting once more to a policy of condemnation, particularly in face of South Africa's virtual withdrawal from the Assembly. The Assembly, they suggested, might instead embark more profitably Upon a policy of conciliation and persuasion, which might encourage the Union Government to reconsider its position. The representative of Syria suggested, for example, that the United Nations might request the assistance of three winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. Ralph Bunche, Dr. Albert Schweitzer and Mr. Lester B. Pearson, in an effort to further the solution of the problem. Another suggestion was that the Secretariat might be asked to prepare a factual report on developments in South Africa and report annually to the General Assembly. The representatives of Australia, Belgium and the United Kingdom were against retaining the item on the Assembly's agenda. While conceding that the United Nations undoubtedly had the duty to promote respect for human rights, they maintained that it was specifically precluded from passing resolutions reflecting on the domestic policies of Member States, however objectionable those policies might be to other Members. Agreeing with this point, the representatives of Argentina, Canada, New Zealand, Peru, Spain, the United States and others questioned the propriety or desirability of adopting new resolutions on the matter. While they agreed that it was within the scope of the responsibility of the United Nations to set general standards of conduct which Member States should strive to attain, they observed that Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter limited the authority of the United Nations with regard to promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. (This paragraph of the Charter, among other things, precludes United Nations intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a State.) The United Nations, they argue'd, were not endowed with powers to indicate specific measures with regard to a given situation. Further, the record of the United Nations in dealing with race conflict in South Africa was not an encouraging one. Little, if anything, had been contributed towards improving the situation in the Union. The Union Government had withdrawn from the Assembly, and the prestige of the Organization had not been enhanced. Under the circumstances, the representative of Argentine suggested the Assembly should seek to clarify the legal issue of competence through the International Court of Justice. The representatives of Canada, New Zealand and the United States thought it better to adopt a resolution of a general nature designed to remind all Member States of their obligations under the Charter in respect of the observance of human rights. On 4 November 1957, the Special Political Committee adopted, by a roll-call vote of 59 to 5, with 10 abstentions, a draft resolution on the question, sponsored by 30 members. On 26 November, this resolution was approved at a plenary meeting of the Assembly by a roll-call vote of 59 to 6, with 14 abstentions, as resolution 1178(XII). The Assembly thereby deplored the fact that the South African Government had not yet responded to the Assembly's call of 30 January 1957 under resolution 1016(XI), to "reconsider its position and revise its policies in the light of its obiligations and responsibilites under the Charter and in the light of the principles subscribed to and the progress achieved in other contemporary multi-racial societies". It also deplored the fact that the Union had not yet responded to its invitation of 30 January 1957

4 QUESTIONS RELATING TO SOUTHERN AFRICA 101 for the Union Government "to co-operate in a constructive approach to this question, more particularly by its presence in the United Nations". It again drew the attention of the Union Government to the terms of the resolution of 30 January The Assembly also appealed to the Union Government in the interests of the common observance by United Nations Members of the high principles and purposes enshrined in the Charter (to which the Union Government had also subscribed and was as much committed as any other Member), to revise its policy in the light of GENERAL ASSEMBLY 12TH SESSION Plenary Meetings 682, 723. General Committee, meeting 111. Special Political Committee, meetings A/3628 and Add.l. Letter of 6 August 1957 from Permanent Representatives of Bolivia, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Sudan and Uruguay, and letter of 3 September 1957 from Permanent Representative of Ceylon, requesting inclusion of following item in agenda of 12th Assembly session "Question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa". A/3670. First report of General Committee. Item, as recommended by General Committee, A/3670, placed on agenda by Assembly on 20 September 1957, plenary meeting 682, by roll-call vote of 64 to 8, with 9 abstentions, as follows: In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Federation of Malaya, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia. Against: Australia, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom. Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Dominican Republic, Finland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Turkey. A/SPC/L.18 and Add.l, 2. Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burma, Ceylon, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Uruguay, Yemen DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES those principles and purposes and of world opinion, and to inform the Secretary-General of its response. The 30 countries originally sponsoring the resolution adopted by the Assembly on 26 November 1957 were Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burma, Ceylon, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Uruguay, Yemen. draft resolution, adopted by Special Political Committee, by roll-call vote of 59 to 5, with 10 abstentions, as follows: In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Federtion of Malaya, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia. Against: Australia, Belgium, France, Portugal, United Kingdom. Abstaining: Argentina, Canada, Dominican Republic, Finland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Spain, United States. A/3722. Report of Special Political Committee. RESOLUTION 1178(XII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/3722, adopted by Assembly on 26 November 1957, meeting 723, by roll-call vote of 59 to 6, with 14 abstentions, as follows: In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Federation of Malaya, Mexico, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia. Against: Australia, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, United Kingdom. Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Dominican Republic, Finland, Honduras, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Peru, Spain, Turkey, United States.

5 102 POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS "The General Assembly, "Recalling its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 1016 (XI) of 30 January 1957, on the question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa, "Recalling in particular paragraph 6 of its resolution 917(X) of 6 December 1955, calling upon the Government of the Union of South Africa to observe its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, "Noting that the General Assembly, in resolution 616 B (VII) of 5 December 1952, declared, inter alia, that governmental policies which are designed to perpetuate or increase discrimination are inconsistent with the Charter, "Further noting that resolutions 395 (V) of 2 December 1950, 511 (VI) of 12 January 1952 and 616 A (VII) of 5 December 1952 have successively affirmed that a policy of 'racial segregation' (apartheid) is necessarily based on doctrines of racial discrimination, "1. Deplores that the Government of the Union of South Africa has not yet responded to the call and invitation conveyed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of General Assembly resolution 1016(XI) of 30 January 1957; "2. Again draws the attention of the Government of the Union of South Africa to that resolution and, in particular, to paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof; "3. Appeals to the Government of the Union of South Africa, in the interests of the common observance by Member States of the high purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, to which the Government of the Union of South Africa has also subscribed and is as much committed as any other Member, to revise its policy in the light of those purposes and principles and of world opinion and to inform the Secretary-General of its response." TREATMENT OF PEOPLE OF INDIAN ORIGIN IN THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA The question of the treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa was proposed for the agenda of the General Assembly's twelfth session by India and Pakistan. In a letter of 16 August 1957 requesting the inclusion of the item, the representative of India recalled that, in a resolution adopted at its previous session (1015(XI)), the Assembly had urged the parties concerned to enter into negotiations to facilitate a settlement of the problem, and to report as appropriate, either jointly or separately, to the Assembly. In pursuance of that resolution, the Government of India had communicated to the Union Government its desire to enter into such negotiations with the Government of the Union of South Africa, but it had received no acknowledgement or reply to its communication. Since the Assembly's explicit wish had been frustrated while the position of persons of Indian origin in South Africa had continued to deteriorate, the Indian Government proposed to report to the Assembly at its twelfth session. It felt certain that the Assembly would wish to take further steps to implement its resolutions on the subject. In a letter of the same day which also requested that the question be placed on the agenda, the representative of Pakistan explained that his Government had asked the Union Government to enter into negotiations, as recommended by the Assembly in resolution 1015 (XI), but had received no reply. As the purposes of the Assembly's resolution had remained unfulfilled, the Government of Pakistan proposed to report on this matter to the Assembly at its twelfth session. When the question of the inclusion of the item in the agenda was considered by the General Committee, and later by the General Assembly, the representative of the Union of South Africa once again protested that consideration of the item constituted an intervention in the domestic affairs of South Africa, in violation of the explicit provision in Article 2, paragraph 7, of the United Nations Charter. (This paragraph states, in part, that nothing in the Charter "shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters... essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State".) On 20 September 1957, the General Assembly decided, by a roll-call vote of 63 to 2, with 16 abstentions, to include the item in its agenda. The Union of South Africa did not participate in the subsequent discussion (see also pages 98-99). The Special Political Committee, to which the question was referred, considered it between 4 and 12 November The Indian representative, opening the debate, recalled that the Assembly had tried, since its first session in 1946, to find a solution to the problem of the treatment of the people of Indian origin under South Africa's policy of racial discrimination. The Union Government,

6 QUESTIONS RELATING TO SOUTHERN AFRICA 103 he said, continued in its policy of apartheid, contrary to the provisions of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Assembly resolutions and the international agreements entered into by India and South Africa. That policy had culminated in the Group Areas Act, which had resulted in grave injustices to the non-european population of South Africa, who included the inhabitants of Indian origin. To implement that Act, the South African authorities were now carrying out major population shifts which obliged large numbers of people to leave areas where they had long lived and worked and which entailed property losses and unemployment. Pakistan's representative said his delegation was still prepared to explore all possible means for a peaceful settlement of the problem, including direct negotiation with the Union's representative. Responsibility for the settlement of the problem, he also believed, rested with the United Nations. During the general debate, many references were made to the treatment of people of Indian origin being an aspect of the general policy of apartheid pursued by the South African Government. The representative of China, who was among those subscribing to this view, thought there was little point in continuing to handle the question of the treatment of people of Indian origin in South Africa as a separate item now that the Assembly had, since 1952, become seized of the overriding question of apartheid, which concerned the treatment of all non-european racial groups in South Africa. Further, the record of the Assembly's previous efforts in dealing with the matter under consideration indicated that there was no way of solving the particular problem of the people of Indian origin in South Africa until the Union Government revised its general racial policy. Several other representatives, though conceding that the item did in fact constitute one aspect of the apartheid question, insisted that it should continue to be discussed separately. This was because of its distinct history which antedated the introduction of the apartheid policy and existed independently of it, and also because it involved, in addition to the general problem of respect for human rights, the special rights of the Governments of India and Pakistan by virtue of existing international agreements. Most representatives who participated in the debate expressly or implicitly endorsed the view that the Assembly was fully competent to deal with matters affecting human rights. Articles 1 (paragraph 3), 10, 13, 14, 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter were cited to refute the contention that the Assembly was precluded, under Article 2, paragraph 7, from considering the item. Some representatives argued that the effect of the word "essentially" in Article 2, paragraph 7, was to limit the scope of domestic jurisdiction and to exclude those matters which the Charter deemed to be of international concern. The representatives of Argentine, Australia, Belgium and the Dominican Republic, on the other hand, contested or had reservations about this argument. The United States representative and others were of the opinion that the aim should be to create an atmosphere which would facilitate the resumption of negotiations between India, Pakistan and the Union of South Africa. It was therefore urged that moderate and conciliatory terms should be used in any resolution to be adopted, so as to encourage and promote a solution by negotiation. The United Kingdom representative was not convinced by the argument that the United Nations was competent to intervene in the matter, even by discussion. He thought that the only way to solve the problem was by direct negotiation. He preferred direct talks outside the United Nations. Such talks would have more chance of success if the Assembly refrained from passing a resolution on the question. A number of representatives maintained that the Assembly had no alternative but to reiterate its adherence to the purposes and principles of the Charter and to appeal once more to world opinion, irrespective of whether past resolutions to this effect had produced the desired results. The representative of Peru suggested that the Assembly might meet the objections of some delegations as to its competence in the matter if it tried to bring about a settlement of the problem with the assistance of Member States not directly involved, or even with the aid of a State which was not a Member of the United

7 104 POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES Nations. Such assistance might be acceptable to the parties concerned. Although the idea of getting neutral advice did not evoke opposition in the Committee, it elicited little response. The representative of India noted that such an approach had been unsuccessfully tried in the past. On 12 November 1957, the Special Political Committee approved a draft resolution submitted by Iran, Mexico, the Philippines and Yugoslavia. It was subsequently adopted at a plenary meeting of the Assembly on 26 November as resolution 1179(XII). Noting thereby that the Governments of both India and Pakistan had reiterated their readiness to pursue negotiations with the Government of the Union of South Africa, the Assembly noted with regret that the Union Government had not agreed to carry forward the purposes of resolution 1015 (XI) of 30 January It appealed to the Union Government to participate in negotiations with the Governments of India and Pakistan, with a view to solving the problem of the treatment of people of Indian origin in South Africa, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also invited the parties concerned to report as appropriate, jointly or separately, to the Assembly on the progress of the negotiations. The vote for this resolution in the Special Political Committee, following a paragraph-byparagraph vote, was 63 to 0, with 14 abstentions, by roll-call. The vote in plenary, also by rollcall, was 64 to 0, with 15 abstentions. GENERAL ASSEMBLY 12TH SESSION Plenary Meetings 682, 723. General Committee, meeting 111. Special Political Committee, meetings A/3643. Letter of 16 August 1957 from Permanent Representative of India. A/3645. Letter of 16 August 1957 from Permanent Representative of Pakistan. Item, as recommended by General Committee, A/3670, placed on agenda by Assembly on 20 September 1957, meeting 682, by roll-call vote of 63 to 2, with 16 abstentions, as follows: In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Ceylon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Federation of Malaya, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia. Against: France, Union of South Africa. Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Dominican Republic, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom. A/3670. First report of General Committee. A/SPC/L.19. Iran, Mexico, Philippines, Yugoslavia draft resolution, adopted by Special Political Committee by roll-call vote of 63 to 0, with 14 abstentions, as follows: In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Ceylon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Federation of Malaya, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia. Against: None. Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom. A/3732. Report of Special Political Committee. RESOLUTION 1179(XII), as recommended by Special Political Committee, A/3732, adopted by Assembly on 26 November 1957, meeting 723, by roll-call vote of 64 to 0, with 15 abstentions, as follows: In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Cambodia, Ceylon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Federation of Malaya, Mexico, Nepal, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia. Against: None. Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom.

8 QUESTION OF PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE AND RELATIONS 105 "The General Assembly, "Recalling its resolution 1015 (XI) of 30 January 1957, "Having considered the reports of the Governments of India and of Pakistan, "1. Notes that the Governments of both India and Pakistan have reiterated their readiness to pursue negotiations with the Government of the Union of South Africa in accordance with the expressed desires of the United Nations; "2. Notes with regret that the Government of the Union of South Africa has not agreed to carry forward the purposes of General Assembly resolution 1015 (XI) of 30 January 1957; "3. Appeals to the Government of the Union of South Africa to participate in negotiations with the Governments of India and of Pakistan with a view to solving this problem in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; "4. Invites the parties concerned to report to the General Assembly as appropriate, jointly or separately, regarding the progress of the negotiations."