Britain or Thursday (30 December) vetoed an African resolution urging the Security Council to reject proposals for a settlement with Rhodesia.
GV EXTERIOR..U.N. Building PAN to delegates' entrance
CU UK representative Colin Crowe speaks,
SV President of Assembly (from Sierra Leone) calls for vote
TRANSCRIPT: SIR COLIN CROWE: SEQ 2: "We should instead be asking ourselves what the alternative is for the African majority in Rhodesia. Are they to choose the road to which these proposals point, hard and arduous though that road may be, or are they to choose the road which as we see it would lead to an intensification of racial discrimination and apartheid. This question of a practicable, I repeat practicable alternative is one to which the critics of have massed addressed themselves, as the distinguished representative of Italy has rightly pointed out.
COUNCIL WILL NOW VOTE ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS A WHOLE.
Those in favour?
The result of the voting as follows. In favour? Nine. Against? One. Abstentions? Nine. I'm sorry, five. (repeats announcement). Accordingly the draft resolution is not adopted because of the negative vote of the permanent members of the Council.
Initials ES. 0.16 ES. 0.29
Script is copyright Reuters Limited. All rights reserved
Background: Britain or Thursday (30 December) vetoed an African resolution urging the Security Council to reject proposals for a settlement with Rhodesia.
It was only the sixth time that Britain had used its rights of veto in the 26-year history of the United Nations.
Voting on the resolution was nine in favour, one against (Britain) with five abstentions. Having obtained the bare minimum of nine votes necessary for adoptions, the resolutions sponsored by Somalia, Burundi and Syria -- was defeated only by the British veto.