Page:General Assembly GA 11437.pdf/4

 Power to provide the Assembly with information on developments towards a full measure of self-government in those territories. However, as of 1947, the Assembly was no longer furnished with information on French Polynesia. Furthermore, a subsequent list of nongoverning territories published in 1963 curiously omitted that territory. He was concerned that the de facto removal of French Polynesia and New Caledonia from United Nations oversight had occurred without adoption of a General Assembly resolution.


 * Discussions on the current resolution had been “around the corridors of the United Nations for a while”, he went on. However, the administering Power, France, had delayed action because of its own national elections. While there was “no organic link” between the national elections of an administering Power and the exercise of the inalienable right to selfdetermination of the people of a territory, agreement to postpone consideration had been honoured in the interest of flexibility. Today’s draft resolution was based on the principle that it was up to the Non-Self Governing Territory of French Polynesia to choose its future destiny, in a just and fair process. The resolution also sent a simple message of peace and hope to the population. “The matter of decolonization remains an unfinished business of the United Nations,” he said.


 * The representative of the Secretariat explained certain financial implications of the text, following which the Assembly adopted it without a vote.


 * Speaking in the explanation of position after the adoption, the representative of the United Kingdom, disassociating herself from the consensus, regretted that the Decolonization Committee continued with its “outdated approach”. She said that it was not for the General Assembly to determine in any particular case that an obligation existed for a State to submit information under Article 73e of the Charter.


 * The representative of the Netherlands, also disassociating the delegation from consensus, said that, although he supported the principle of the inalienable right to self-determination, the Assembly must hear from the people of French Polynesia before adopting a resolution that determined their future.


 * The representative of Germany also took to the floor to say that he, too, disassociated himself from consensus.


 * The representative of the United States strongly affirmed the principle of self-determination as one of the fundamental values of the Organization. However, “the facts are clear”: the people of French Polynesia had made clear that they did not support that particular resolution — it ignored the autonomy and will of the people it claimed to represent. He disassociated himself from consensus.


 * The representative of Mexico, also recognizing the inalienable right of people to self-determination, believed that in that particular case, “we must guarantee the rights of all interested parties to be recognized”. Mexico preferred that the Assembly would have responded positively to the request of French Polynesia, whose authorities were taking power today, to postpone action. Mexico expressed reservations about the manner in which the resolution was being adopted.


 * The representative of Argentina considered that the United Nations Decolonization Committee was the appropriate forum to address the issue. The French Polynesian people could express their views via that means.


 * The representative of Indonesia said that today’s adoption was solely based on a specific historical context and should not be misinterpreted as precedence by other territories whose cases were pending with the Decolonization Committee. He encouraged the French Government to continue engaging in constructive dialogue with French Polynesia in a manner that would best serve the interests of the people of Polynesia.