World Court Ruling Attacked At U.N.

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31119, 23 July 1966, Page 15

World Court Ruling Attacked At U.N.

(N.Z.P.A. Reuter—Copyright)

NEW YORK, July 22. Australia was yesterday described as “a country which has more than one thing it could be criticised for on racial grounds.”

The sharp attack came from the chairman of the apartheid committee, Mr Achkar Marof, of Guinea, who was commenting on Monday’s decision by the World Court. The International Court of Justice rejected complaints brought by Liberia and Ethiopia on behalf of Africa’s independent States about South Africa’s administration of South-West Africa. Australia came under fire because an Australian judge, Sir Percy Spender, a former External Affairs Minister, as the Court’s president, cast the tie-breaking vote that threw out the African complaint. Britain was also criticised because a British judge, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, took the majority view. African delegates also made reference to the Greek and French judges, but none to Dr. Bohdan Winiarski, of Poland, also in the majority. POLAND “EMBARRASSED" The embarrassed Polish delegation at the United Nations sought privately to dissociate itself from his opinion. There was an unconfirmed report today that the War-

saw Government was considering issuing a disclaimer. Members of the Court are supposed to be independent of their home governments, but African delegates have made it clear they consider that Sir Percy Spender was less than objective in his approach to the South-West Africa case. African delegates were strongly critical of Australia at a meeting of their entire group last Tuesday. The criticism came in statements by Mr Marof and the vice-chairman of the special committee on colonialism, Mr John W. S. Malecela, of Tanzania. At a meeting of his committee Mr Marof referred to the casting vote of “Mr Spender, of Australia,” which he described as“a country which has more than one thing that

It could be criticised for on racial grounds.” Mr Marof said it was high time for the United Nations to take positive action, “including the application of mandatory sanctions against South Africa, to prevent the annexation of South - West Africa by South Africa, and to ensure its independence in spite of the judgment of the Greek, French, English and the most distinguished judge, the Australian. Mr Malecela considered, like Mr Marof, to be among the most militant African delegates, accused Australia of having stabbed Africa in the back. DEBATE DISCUSSED Presiding at the first meeting of the colonialism committee’s new sub-committee on South-West Africa, he con trasted Sir Percy Spender’s vote with Australia’s professed friendship for Africa and opposition to apartheid. There was still talk at the United Nations today of the possible convening of a special General Assembly session exclusively to debate the situation in South-West Africa and perhaps to receive a resolution to revoke South Africa’s 46-year-old mandate over it. African delegates at the United Nations have received what one of them called a thoroughly discouraging report on possible further legal steps from the American lawyer who unsuccessfully presented their case.

In Washington, the United States Secretary of State States Secretary of State Mr Dean Rusk, said yesterday he was surprised by the World Court’s judgment.