3. The Republic of Nauru has become the Commonwealth's first "special member", with the right to participate in all functional meetings and activities, and to be eligible for Commonwealth technical assistance. The Associated States of the West Indies, having reached a full measure of self-government although not fully independent, also take part in Commonwealth meetings and activities in fields within their constitutional competence. Heads of Government welcomed these arrangements which had been agreed since their last Meeting to enable very small States to participate in the work of the Commonwealth.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

4. Heads of Government were aware that they were meeting at a time of some misgivings about the effectiveness of international organisations and associations. They were unanimous that effective international co-operation was more than ever important. Any weaknesses and failures of international machinery were a reason to improve that machinery, not to despair of it. They expressed their continued support for the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and their wish to contribute to efforts to strengthen the institutions and work of the United Nations, particularly its role in maintaining and promoting peace. 5. They noted with pleasure the part played by Commonwealth countries in the development of regional co-operation. At the same time they recognised that exchanges of view and consultation within a wider association such as the Commonwealth offered one means by which its members could form a better understanding of one another's problems and attitudes and of their growing interdependence.

6. With these considerations in mind, they reviewed some of the major issues and trends in the world political situation.

7. They were in agreement that the principles of non-interference by one State in the internal affairs of another and of scrupulous respect for the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and political independence of all States are the very cornerstone of the structure of world peace.

8. Heads of Government felt that events in Czechoslovakia, in violation of these principles and of the United Nations Charter, tended to undermine respect for the territorial integrity and sovereign independence of all States, particularly small States.

9. They considered that events in the Middle East in violation of the United Nations Charter and the Security Council resolutions emphasised the need for the establishment of a durable peace in the area as a matter of urgency. This could be achieved in accordance with the Security Council's Resolution of 22nd November, 1967. The Heads of Government expressed support for the efforts of Dr. Jarring, the special representative of the U.N. Secretary-General, and urged all concerned to give him their fullest co-operation. They were encouraged to note the round of consultation now in progress among four permanent members of the Security Council and urged these Governments to persist in their efforts to help bring about a settlement in accordance with the 22nd November Resolution of the Security Council. While the role of major Powers was important, other countries especially those who have an interest in the re-opening of the Suez Canal, including Commonwealth members, could contribute towards a settlement.

10. Recalling the views expressed at their Meetings in 1965 and 1966, Heads of Government welcomed the commencement of the Vietnam talks in Paris and expressed the hope that they would lead to discussions aimed at securing a just, lasting and genuine peace.

11. It was the view of the majority of Heads of Government that the People's Republic of China has a right and a duty to participate in full in all the world's efforts towards peace. Most Heads of Government expressed the hope that the People's Republic of China would be able to take its rightful place in the international community, although some of them also stressed that this should be achieved without prejudicing the rights of the people of Taiwan to an independent existence if they chose. However, certain Prime Ministers of countries whose Governments recognised the Government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) reiterated their support of that Government's right to membership of the United Nations.

12. Heads of Government, recalling the ending of Indonesia's policy of confrontation against Malaysia in 1966, were encouraged by developments towards stability in Indonesia since their last Meeting in 1966 and felt that this would contribute to the general stability and economic development of the region.

13. The Meeting observed that difficulties between Malaysia and the Philippines arising out of the Philippine claim to Sabah had hampered the progress of regional co-operation in South East Asia. It expressed the hope that these difficulties could be resolved by peaceful means, upholding the right of selfdetermination which has been exercised by the people of Sabah.

14. The Meeting also noted with concern and sympathy the difficulties which Guyana was experiencing in connection with Venezuela's claim to more than one-half of Guyana's territory. Acknowledging that threats to the territorial integrity of the State make inevitable the diversion of resources and energies from the constructive tasks of development, many members shared the view advanced by Guyana's Prime Minister that there was an urgent need for an international effort to secure the territorial integrity of every State-and especially of the small developing countries of the world.

15. The Meeting expressed the hope that the recent achievement of independence by many small States would bring home to the international community the need to introduce special and effective measures to guarantee their territorial integrity.

16. The Meeting considered that major barriers to progress on negotiated agreements in critical areas and fields would be overcome by significant progress in achieving detente and in co-operation between the major Powers. It was therefore considered essential that efforts to reduce tension and extend areas of peace and co-operation should continue.

17. Heads of Government recalled that at their Meeting in September, 1966, they had expressed the view that events were throwing into ever sharper relief the need for firm and far reaching agreements on disarmament. They considered that the need for such agreements was even more urgent now than it was then, and hoped that the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee would resume consideration of this matter.

18. The Meeting considered that the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee should, as a matter of priority, explore possibilities of reaching agreement on

effective measures designed to bring about a cessation of the nuclear arms race at a very early date. With this end in view a universally binding comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty was an urgent necessity. In this connection, the British proposal to the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee for a phased approach to a comprehensive test ban treaty was deserving of further study. They considered that the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee should also seek to achieve a cut-off of the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes. Both these measures could be of great significance in halting the nuclear arms race. Mention was also made of the possibility that the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee might undertake the study of various proposals made for a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. The Meeting gave particularly strong support to one of the recommendations made by the Conference of Non-Nuclear Weapon States (whose distinguished President was present at this Meeting) and repeated by the General Assembly of the United Nations to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union, that they should at an early date begin their bilateral discussions on the limitation of offensive strategic nuclear weapon delivery systems and systems of defence against ballistic missiles.

19. The Meeting stressed again that effective disarmament must cover nonnuclear as well as nuclear weapons. In this connection the Heads of Government drew attention to the urgent need for action to deal with the threat presented by chemical and biological weapons and welcomed the British proposal to the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee for a new convention prohibiting micro-biological methods of warfare. They looked forward to the report on chemical and biological weapons which the Secretary-General of the United Nations had been requested to prepare; they hoped that this would make a valuable contribution to the consideration of arms control measures to deal with these weapons.

20. Heads of Government recalled that at their Meeting in September, 1966, they had stressed that while there was still time it was imperative to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. A step towards this goal was taken with the opening for signature of the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In so far as the Treaty achieved this objective, most Heads of Government welcomed it. However, some Heads of Government had reservations on certain aspects of the Treaty including its effectiveness and the reliability of security guarantees for non-nuclear weapon States. It was recognised that the NonProliferation Treaty would not fulfil all the hopes set upon it unless progress could also be made by the nuclear Powers towards effective measures of nuclear disarmament. It was also recognised that member States which were subjected to attack of threat of attack by either nuclear or non-nuclear weapons had the right to the protection afforded to them under the United Nations Charter.

21. The Meeting heard a statement by Britain on the progress of the remaining British dependencies towards self-government or independence. Twenty such dependencies were now left-many of them very small islands-and there had been recent constitutional advances in sixteen. It noted that in the case of British Honduras, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, the British Government stood ready to hold discussions with interested neighbouring countries, consonant with its basic principle, which was enshrined in the United Nations Charter, that the interests and wishes of the inhabitants must be paramount.

22. The Prime Minister of Malta drew the attention of other Heads of Government to the situation arising from the rapidly increasing technological capacity to exploit the immense resources of the sea bed, which constitutes nearly three-quarters of the surface of the earth. They considered that the area of the sea bed and ocean floor beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction, for which a precise definition should be sought, should be accorded a special legal status as part of the common heritage of mankind, and as such should be reserved for peaceful purposes and for the orderly exploration and exploitation of its great resources, by such appropriate international machinery as is agreed acting for the common benefit of all States, irrespective of their geographical location, and taking into special consideration the interests and needs of the developing countries.

23. The Meeting welcomed the initiative of the Government of Malta which led to the appointment in December, 1968, by the General Assembly of the United Nations of a committee on the peaceful uses of the sea bed and the ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and declared its support for the committee's work.

RHODESIA

24. The Meeting had a full discussion on the problem of Rhodesia. Heads of Government agreed that there were several reasons why Rhodesia was so important in Commonwealth consultations. The legal authority and the responsibility for the terms on which it would be brought to independence rested with Britain, a Commonwealth member. The attempts of Commonwealth countries adjacent to Rhodesia to establish non-racial societies and prosperous economies were jeopardised by the growing threat of race conflict within the region. But the overriding reason was that problems such as this involved principles of racial justice and equality and the right of all peoples to self-determination which are embodied in the United Nations Charter and in the Declaration of Human Rights. These matters went to the heart of the Commonwealth relationship and were therefore of deep concern to all Commonwealth members.

25. The Meeting recalled that, for these reasons, Rhodesia had been an important subject of discussion at recent Commonwealth Conferences, and Heads of Government reiterated the principles and objectives affirmed at their four previous Meetings.

26. They also reviewed developments since their last Meeting, noting that the illegal regime had continued acts of political repression against the African majority population, and that there were increasing trends towards an apartheid system in Rhodesia.

27. The constitutional proposals drawn up on board H.M.S. Fearless were discussed. Most Heads of Government emphasised their view that these proposals were unacceptable as the constitution of an independent Rhodesia, and should therefore be withdrawn. They considered that to transfer sovereignty to a racial minority as the result of an agreement reached with that minority would settle nothing, if the settlement was not freely accepted by the people of Rhodesia as a whole including the four million African Rhodesians and seen by the international community, especially the independent African countries, to be so accepted. Otherwise internal strife, and outside support for guerrilla activities

would increase, with the inevitable risk of increasing instability and eventual race war. They stated that historical experience suggested that once independence was achieved, a minority in power could not be prevented from changing a constitution in whatever way they might wish. The only effective guarantees of political and civil rights lay in vesting those rights in the people as a whole.

28. The Meeting recalled the pledge given by the British Prime Minister, following discussion at the Commonwealth Meeting in September, 1966, that independence would not be granted before majority rule was achieved (N.I.B.M.R.). The British Prime Minister stated that although the Fearless Proposals remained on the table, there had been no change in the British Government's policy on N.I.B.M.R. The Meeting welcomed the statement that the British Government's policy on N.I.B.M.R. remained unchanged, but most Heads of Government reiterated their position that the Fearless Proposals should be withdrawn.

29. Some Heads of Government reiterated their call on the British Government to use force to quell the rebellion in Rhodesia. The British Prime Minister explained the reasons why the British Government regarded the use of force as wrong and impracticable.

30. The British Prime Minister said that he had taken careful note of the view expressed by most other Heads of Government that the Fearless Proposals ought to be withdrawn. But he could not himself accept this view since he considered that it would be right, if it proved possible, to give the people of Rhodesia as a whole an opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they wished for a settlement which would be fully consistent with the Six Principles laid down by successive British Governments. Any such settlement would need to be clearly shown to be the wish of the Rhodesian people as a whole. If that took place, he would consult his Commonwealth colleagues about the N.I.B.M.R. commitments. He emphasised, however, that a settlement based on the Six Principles would not be possible if it were shown that there could be no genuine test of its acceptability in present circumstances in Rhodesia.

31. It was agreed that any settlement must depend for its validity upon the democratically ascertained wishes of the people of Rhodesia as a whole. The process for ascertaining their views was the British Government's responsibility, but the test of the acceptability of any proposed settlement would need to be made in a manner which would carry conviction in the Commonwealth and in the international community generally, so that its results would be accepted as truly reflecting the wishes of the people of Rhodesia. Many Heads of Government urged that this could only be carried out through the normal democratic process of election or referendum, and doubted whether adequate safeguards for free political expression and verification of the results could be provided so long as the rebel government remained in power. The Meeting noted the British Prime Minister's statement that it would be open to the proposed Royal Commission to say that in the circumstances prevailing in Rhodesia, no genuire assessment was possible of the acceptability of the proposed settlement to the people of Rhodesia as a whole and that, further, if the Royal Commission felt themselves unable to adjudicate on the acceptability or otherwise of the proposals to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, they would be free to recommend any alternative method, including a referendum, which in their view would adequately test Rhodesian opinion.