movements could speak for the aspirations of the colonized people in their
countries.  Then, the General Assembly itself passed a resolution which overwhelmingly affirmed that the "national liberation movements of Angola, Guinea
(Bissau), and Mozambique are the authentic representatives of the people of
those territories." This resolution further recommended that all governments
and U.N. bodies should have the liberation movements represented when dealing
with Portuguese colonialism.  It requested that member states srhould not
provide Portugal with any aid which would help her in her efforts to prosecute
her colonial wars. The General Assembly resolution passed 98-6, with the U.S.,
Britain, Spain, Brazil, Portugal, and South Africa opposing. Eight western and
Latin American countries abstained.
Finally, the Secrurity Council unanimously passed a resolution, which,
although watered down by the influence of the large western powers, did reaffirm the "inalienable right of the peoples of Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-
Bissau to self-determination and independence" and called upon Portugal to
begin negociations towards granting independence with the parties concerned.
The implications of these decisions are numerous. The humanitarian agencies
of the U.N. are now authorized to give material support to the liberation
movements, and some textbooks for use in schools in liberated Guinea-Bissau
have already been printed by UNESCO. Furthermore, the international community
is now referred to FRELIMO, MPLA, and PAIGC on all questions concerning the
inhabitants of their countries. In particular, one must look to the MPLA, FRELIMO,
and PAIGC for their policies on foreign investment. All three movements have
spoken out plainly on this subject. Their position is that foreign investment
serves only to strengthen Portugal as it fights against the movements, and
therefore present investors should be pressed to withdraw and future investors
discouraged.
The recent U.N. vote thus validates the position of numerous groups in the
U.S. which have pressed for Gulf Oil to withdraw from Angola, pointing out that
Gulf's tax payments to Portugal (projected by Gulf to reach $45 million in 1972
alone) strengthen the Portuguese war effort and increase Portugal's vested interest in Angola. The Fourth Committee and General Assembly decisions greatly
strengthen the hand of the liberation support groups and other organizations in
the U.S. pushing for U.S. business to withdraw from Mozambique, Angola, and
Guinea-Bissau.
The U.S. position on recognizing the liberation movements was less than
enthusiastic. In addition to voting against the General Assembly resolution,
George Bush, U.S. representative to the U.N., argued that support for the
liberation movements was contrary to the U.N. Charter. During the Security
Council session, Mr. Bush stated that 'In the exercise of self-determination,
independence is certainly one of the options...But it is not the only choice".
He also requested a division of the final, weak Security Council resolution
so that the U.S. could vote against the paragraph condemning Portugal, but
this was denied by the resolution's chief sponsorer, Somalia, and the U.S.
finally voted for the resolution.
While friends and foes alike are often sceptical of the efficacy of
U.N. actions, FRELIMO, PAIGC, and MPLA have clearly won a diplomatic victory
in the U.N. this session, as well as increased international stature and
promises of more material aid.