1. Madam President, it is with
a feeling of deep satisfaction that I express my congratulations
to you on your election to the presidency of the
twenty-fourth session of the General Assembly. You have
represented your country at the United Nations for some
years with competence and distinction. Now, Madam
President, it is the whole of Africa and not only your
country that has desired the honour and privilege of your
election to this distinguished office. As an African, I am
delighted to congratulate you most sincerely on this rare
and well-deserved privilege.
2. However, Madam President, although the African Members
of this Assembly may rejoice in your election, they
have, looking outside this Assembly, little cause for
satisfaction. They have to reflect most soberly and seriously
that in this age of neo-colonialism Africans continue to
suffer the frustration of their efforts to achieve ultimate
liberation.
3. We in the Sudan, like the peoples of many other
countries in Africa and Asia, regained our independence
when colonialism was beginning to recede as a result of the
determined efforts of the peoples of these two continents
to be free of foreign domination. The fourteen years of our
independence since 1956 have been years of great experience.
Like so many other countries of the African
continent, we emerged as a sovereign nation after the
disruption and exploitation of the colonial era, in the
confidence that we would be able to achieve our aims
through the representative institutions of liberal democracy.
We had hoped to co-operate with all nations on
friendly and equal terms.
4. We were soon to learn, however, that independence was
without meaning or value if it were not complete in every
way, in the economic as well as in the political spheres. It
did not take us long to discover that the forms of Western
democracy, imposed on tribal and under-developed institutions,
could only lead to the consolidation of the forces of
reaction. We also learnt that a system of free and
uncontrolled economic enterprise, in conditions of general
under-development, would inevitably result in exploitation
and injustice. We came ultimately to realize that in order to
safeguard our sovereignty and national unity we had to be
constantly watchful and vigilant against the forces of
neo-colonialism that continued to support and encourage
divisiveness and dissension. This realization did not come
easily to us, nor did it come without sacrifice.
5. My Government has pledged itself to a policy that takes
into account all the lessons that we learnt during those
fourteen years of trials and tribulations, the fourteen years
of our independence. We declared in one of the first edicts
of our revolutionary Government that our policy would be
directed primarily towards the betterment of our forgotten
people, the peasants and the workers to whom independence
had meant little more than a change of masters. One
of the first acts of this revolutionary Government was to
define the goals of our economic policy—rejecting all forms
of exploitation within the country and foreign domination
from without.
6. We refused economic aid that would seek to impose on
us conditions on how the funds were to be invested or
modify the socialist orientation of our economic planning;
we declared our irrevocable commitment to the attainment
of socialism as the most humane and just system for our
society.
7. The concept of non-alignment in international relations
is to us, as an Arab country, conscious of the historic unity
and destiny of the Arab people, endowed with a positive
element. We do not stand in the middle of the road,
maintaining a position of neutrality between the imperialist
camp and the socialist countries. There can be no such
neutrality for us.
8. We, therefore, stand united with the progressive and
revolutionary forces, not only in the Arab world, but also
in the world at large, acting in full awareness of the role
that these forces can play in working for the happiness and
prosperity of mankind. Among such forces we count the
Palestine revolutionary movement whose struggle we are
pledged to support by every means at our disposal,
mobilizing our resources and our people for the cause of
the liberation of Palestine.
9. It follows from this commitment that our relations with
other States have been redefined in accordance with their
attitude towards that issue. Thus we have recognized and
applauded the courageous stand of the German Democratic
Republic, which has given full recognition and support to
the Palestine liberation movement. Thus we have recognized
and applauded the support of the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea, which has declared its solidarity
with the people of Palestine in their struggle for
national liberation.
10. The revolutionary Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Sudan has accorded full diplomatic
recognition to those Governments and maintains with them
the closest and most cordial relations, ever conscious of the
fact that the unity of the progressive forces of the world
will eventually triumph over the forces of darkness and
reaction.
11. Thus we come to the United Nations, to this Assembly,
as one of its smaller Members, perhaps less endowed
than many others in terms of economic development, but
confident in our belief that it is by our own effort and
sacrifice that we can achieve the goals that we have set for
ourselves. We come to the United Nations in hope but
without illusions, since we, like many others of our
continent of Africa and of the Arab world, have experienced
too many setbacks and disappointments to harbour
any illusions. We have witnessed, only too often, the failure
of the United Nations to uphold the values and principles
of its Charter. We have observed with dismay the progressive
stultification of United Nations endeavours in the
maintenance and preservation of peace and the frustration
of its efforts for multilateral economic co-operation.
12. However, the reasons for the failure of this Organization
to be an effective instrument for peace and progress
are not far to seek. We have no doubt that the failure of
this Organization is due to a large extent to the tendency of
the imperialist Powers to use the United Nations as an
instrument of their policies. This abuse has inevitably led to
the decline in the prestige of the Organization and to a
severe limitation of its capabilities and resources and has
engendered a lack of confidence in its effectiveness.
13. The failure of the Organization to solve the situation
in the Middle East is not of recent origin; and it will
continue to plague this Organization so long as it persists in
ignoring the essential nature of the question of Palestine.
The struggle that the Palestinians and the Arabs have been
engaged in is a struggle of the indigenous population against
alien domination.
14. Zionist propaganda often relates its title to the land of
Palestine to a legendary domicile, going back to biblical
times. It is an incontestable historical fact, however, that
for 3,000 years—prior to 1948—Palestine had not been once
under Jewish administration. There have always been Jews
in Palestine, but they represented only 9 per cent of the
population by 1918.
15. During the time of the partition, when Israel acquired
by force of arms an area two-thirds in excess of the area
assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution,
there were still more Arabs than Jews in Palestine. This
clearly represented an intolerable situation for the Zionists,
who coveted the land of the Arabs in order to establish the
Zionist State—rooted in the concept of racial exclusiveness
and intolerance. The people of Palestine were evacuated
through campaigns of unmitigated terror and atrocity, and
the homes and lands of the Palestinians were usurped by
immigrants from Europe who had no better claim to the
land than a worshipper in the Kowloon Mosque of Hong
Kong could have to Mecca.
16. Thus it was estimated, as late as 1954, that 350 out of
40O Jewish settlements were established on lands that had
belonged to Palestinians who subsequently became refugees—
those refugees that the United Nations has reaffirmed,
year after year for over two decades, should be repatriated
or adequately compensated. Those are the people who have
the undeniable right to the land of Palestine. Those are the
people that the United Nations has abandoned to the
Zionist aggressors.
17. The Foreign Minister of Israel is certainly not serious
in trying to base a claim to Arab land on historical
considerations going back 3,000 years—that is, to
1,000 B.C. He is certainly not so naive as to try to reshape
the map of the world into the form it had in 1,000 B.C. If
he really thinks that that is a basis for his claim; if he
considers that any people that have been where they are for
less than 3,000 years can be dislodged with impunity, then
surely the Foreign Minister of Israel would not only lose
the rostrum from which he has been displaying his
eloquence, but he would be looking in vain in this part of
the world for the limitless military, monetary and moral
support by which a people of only 2 million have been
encouraged to defy a nation of 100 million.
18. The question, therefore, is essentially related to the
continued existence of the Palestinians as a people and their
right to struggle by every means in order to maintain their
national identity and uphold their inherent right to stay in
their homeland. No State, no international organization,
can deny them that right or ask them to disperse, or for
ever live on the charity of others, as refugees.
19. The Zionist leaders have often suggested that the
Arabs were belligerent because they challenged the right of
Israel to exist within secure and recognized boundaries; as if
the existence of Israel was not based on the dispersal of the
Palestinians; as if the boundaries of Israel were not
extended through aggression and forceful occupation.
20. The Foreign Minister of Israel has often derided the
Declaration of the Arab Summit Conference held at
Khartoum from 29 August to 1 September 1967 as
signifying bad faith and intransigence on the part of the
Arabs because it set forth the determination of the Arab
nation not to recognize or negotiate with Israel or surrender
the rights of the people of Palestine to their homeland.
21. Let me proclaim from this rostrum that this remains
the Arab position. It has not changed; nor will the twenty
years of the Israeli usurpation of Palestine or subsequent
Israeli conquests endow Israel with any rights whatsoever.
The Arab States were right—and within their rights—to
declare at Khartoum on 1 September 1967 that their basic
commitment and conviction entailed non-recognition of
Israel, no negotiation with Israel and no surrender of the
rights of the people of Palestine.
22. The Israeli leaders have since indicated that they
intend to retain Arab territory occupied since June 1967.
As recently as June last, Moshe Dayan proclaimed:
“This is our homeland and if I say homeland I mean
also Nablus and Jericho.... We consider the Golan
Heights part of Israel.... We must treat the Palestinians
living on the West Bank as a government treats its
citizens. They will be our citizens for a very long time.”
The Foreign Minister of Israel, who maintained in his
address to this Assembly on 19 September [1757th
meeting] that there was nothing which was not negotiable,
expressed a different and contradictory position to the
Knesset when he said, in reply to a parliamentary question
on 12 May 1969:
“Three demands which Israel will not waive are a
permanent presence at Sharm El Sheik, a unified Jerusalem...
and a Golan Heights for ever out of Syrian hands.”
It appears, therefore, that Mr. Eban has a different mantle
for every occasion, since his statement in the Knesset
excludes Sharm El Sheik, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights
in no uncertain terms from even the possibility of negotiation.
23. In the face of his strong affirmation regarding the need
for negotiations between the Arabs and the Israelis, one
might indeed ask the Foreign Minister of Israel whether he
does or does not consider himself or his State bound by the
resolutions of his party congress regarding the permanent
retention by Israel of the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and
a considerable part of the eastern and southern Sinai
Peninsula. If he does consider himself bound by these
resolutions, how is it possible for him to maintain that
there is nothing that is not negotiable between Israel and
the Arabs? How does he want us to believe that he or his
State can wriggle out of the resolutions in the drafting of
which he himself took a major part?
24. The Palestinians have demonstrated that they do not
wish to be colonized by Israel, and they have a right, like
every colonial people, to wage a war of liberation against
colonial domination by Israel. They aspire to live as a free
people in a free Palestine.
25. The people of Palestine envision a country unlike
present-day Israel, which is a colony of aliens supported by
world Zionism and nurtured by the United States of
America and its imperialist satellites. The Palestinians
entertain no claim of racial exclusiveness. They do not
envisage a State based on any single religion or faith. The
Palestinians see the Palestine of the future as a State the
citizens of which are equal, without regard to race or
religion; a State in which the Jewish community would be
given the right to live as equal citizens, as they had always
lived amongst the Arabs, free from that abominable state of
persecution to which they had been subjected in Europe
throughout the ages.
26. If this position is construed as being incompatible with
the existence of the state of Israel, the fault lies with the
State of Israel, which was established by an act of illegality
fostered through aggression and unlawful occupation, a
State in which the Arabs are treated as second-class citizens
who are made to pay for sins that they never committed.
27. The Palestinian struggle is directed towards the
achievement of a free and democratic State that does not
exclude the Jews of Palestine. This surely is an endeavour
that is worthy of support, not only by the Arabs but by the
United Nations itself. It is a sad reflection on this
Organization that it has not seen fit to view this dispute in
its proper perspective, in order to be able to discharge its
primary responsibility in bringing about a just and lasting
peace in the Middle East.
28. The President of the United States of America
declared on 27 January 1969 that he considered the Middle
East “a powder-keg”’ that needed to be defused, He stated
that he was “open to any suggestion that may cool it off
and reduce the possibility of another explosion”. Yet, we
have witnessed during the last few months that the
Government of the United States has bent every effort to
support the Israeli position of continued occupation and
provocation, even to the extent of supporting its defiance
of the resolutions of the Security Council and the General
Assembly of the United Nations.
29. In major declarations of policy on the Middle East
issue, four successive Presidents of the United States have
pledged that their country would defend the right of every
State in the area to peace and security and the maintenance
of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
30. The United States has not fulfilled that pledge. Its
commitment has been one of unreserved support for Israeli
aggression. Its commitment has been just one-sided. At the
beginning of the present administration, it was proclaimed
that a more even-handed policy would be followed by the
Government of the United States on this issue, but in actual
fact, this has been the period when Israel was enabled by
the United States to maintain and even extend its aggression.
The territorial integrity of all States that the United
States Presidents have pledged to uphold is being violated,
with the active help of the Government of the United
States, in the Israeli occupation of the Arab lands.
31. In this connexion, it is interesting to consider that
over the past twenty years the volume of economic aid,
both private and public, that has flowed from the United
States into the Israeli coffers exceeded a total of $4,000
million, or about $1,200 for every one of the citizens of
Israel.
32. Further, in the conditions that prevail in the United
States of America, where the Zionists wield such an
inordinate influence in business and government circles, the
attempt at the adoption of an even-handed policy towards
both the Zionist State and the Arabs was bound to come to
grief.
33. Mr. David Nes of the State Department, in an address
delivered on 18 April 1969 at the Conference on World
Affairs of the University of Colorado, entitled “Our Middle
East Involvement”, revealed the extent of this influence. He
stated that 20 per cent of key positions in the State
Department were held by Jews, most of them presumably
sympathetic to the Israeli position.
34. Professor Willard Oxtoby of the University of Yale
described the genesis and conditions of the commitment of
the Government of the United States to Israeli policies in
the following terms:
“In this country, any question of Israel’s right to exist,
or of her actions today in any field, is immediately
targeted as anti-Semitism... anything short of total
commitment to the rightness of Israel’s cause is interpreted
as anti-Semitism.... In our country, this a
characterization which I would say, certainly in government,
is considered far worse than being a communist.”
35. In these conditions it is idle to suppose that the Arab
cause, no matter how just, would receive the support of the
United States Government. This has been demonstrated
time and again, during the last two decades.
36. We heard the President of the United States proclaim
from this rostrum last Thursday, 18 September, that the
Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967 “charts
the way to that settlement” [1755th meeting, para. 64].
Our understanding of that resolution differs from that of
the President of the United States. We consider a resolution
of the Security Council not as a working paper but as a
solemn decision that requires implementation, especially in
conditions where the threat to the peace is so palpable. We
expect the United States of America, which is a major
Power and a permanent member of the Security Council, to
bring its prestige and influence to bear so that the
dangerous situation in the Middle East does not develop
into what President Nixon, in his statement of January
1969, feared would be ”a major explosion” that could very
well involve “a confrontation between the nuclear Powers”.
37. The President of the United States in his speech before
this Assembly on 18 September 1969 [1755th meeting]
stated: that in case of failure to reach agreement on a
settlement in the. Middle Hast. the great Powers should
endeavour to contain the conflict by limiting the supply of
arms to the belligerents. Yet the. United States, through its
delivery of the Phantom jets and other weapons of
aggression to Israel, has helped to spur rather than deter the
armaments race in the area. The seriousness of that action
will be fully realized when we consider that Israel has
nuclear capability based-on nuclear reactors such as that at
Demona, which is capable of producing enough plutonium
for the manufacture of several nuclear weapons. It is an
open secret that Israel possesses this.capability as well as
the means of delivery.
38. We have no doubt the ultimate purpose of Israel’s
nuclear capability, nor do the Israelis themselves leave any
room for doubt in the matter, since they have rejected the
application of the International Atomic Energy Agency
safeguards system and have not accepted the agreement on
the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
39. The suggestion by the President of the United States
for arms limitation, if Security Council resolution
242 (1967) providing for the withdrawal of Israel is not
implemented, amounts to an endorsement: of the Israeli
position and a sanction of its continued occupation of the
Arab land in contravention of the Charter of the United
Nations and specific resolutions of the Security Council. It
did not come as a surprise to us that that should be the
position of the United States on this issue, since it is part of
the declared policy of the United States that‘Israel should
maintain a clear superiority in armaments over the Arabs.
The suggestion that there should now be some arms
limitation convinces us that the United States is now
assured that it has provided Israel with the means of
maintaining that superiority.
40. Let me say that we reject that suggestion that
seeks to impose on the Arabs a permanent position of
inferiority and subservience.
41. We, as a part of the Arab nation, are convinced that
our struggle against the colonial occupation of Palestine by
the Zionists will be long and arduous. The United States, in
supporting injustice and upholding usurpation has irrevocably
identified itself with the immorality of the Israeli
occupation. Ultimately, it will be the loser since the Arabs
are inexorably moving towards the full attainment of their
inalienable right to live in freedom in the Arab homeland;
and while the United States supports the cause of foreign
domination and reaction, the Arabs have come to realize
that their destiny lies in the solidarity of the progressive
forces in the Arab nation supported by all the peace-loving
countries of the world.
42. Let it be clear to the Government and people of the
United States of America that the policy pursued by the
Unites States Government in the Middle East can lead to
nothing but the alienation of the Arab people. The United
State Government has maintained some traditional friendships
with certain ruling circles in the Arab world in the
mistaken belief that such a course of action is sufficient to
give it that grip over affairs that is necessary for the
protection of American interests in the Middle East.
43. Let there be no misapprehension about the fact that
such a course of action is pregnant with considerable
dangers to those very interests that the United States
Government seeks to safeguard. The Arab peoples everywhere
do not have any illusions about this. It is for the
United States to choose between amity with a nation of
100 million in an area of great strategic importance and
animosity to that nation. It is for the United States to
choose between a foreign policy dictated purely by
domestic considerations and one pursued in conformity
with the exigencies of foreign realities.
44. Finally, we reject the implication in the policy
declaration of the President of the United States before this
Assembly when he said: “We are convinced that peace
cannot be achieved on the basis of substantial alterations in
the map of the Middle East” [1755th meeting, para. 65].
Let us sound the warning here that peace cannot be
achieved on the basis of any alterations in the map of the
Middle East: to maintain a position that contradicts this is
to contravene the provisions of Security Council resolution
242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, which calls for the
complete withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the occupied
areas. To maintain a position that Israel should extend its
territory in the Arab lands that it now occupies is to
support the contention that armed conquest is capable of
supporting rights or concessions. It is regrettable that the
President of the United States should hold the position that
the map of the Middle East has to be modified in order to
appease Israeli ambitions. It is lamentable that he saw fit to
declare this before the Assembly.
45. For some years now the United States has been
fighting a brutal war in Viet-Nam. The United States has
committed more of its armed forces to that war than it did
in Korea, more in fact than it has done in any other war,
except the two world wars. The number of United States
troops and their allies, before the recent token withdrawal,
represented a numerical superiority of men under arms of
the order of seven to one. The allied forces of aggression in
South Viet-Nam have had, in addition to overwhelming
numerical superiority, a superiority in fire-power, excluding
the B-52 operations, amounting to about one hundred to
one. It has been reliably estimated that the superiority of
the allies over the Viet-Namese patriots in helicopter-transport
facilities, in communications and electronics, has
amounted to about one thousand to one.
46. It becomes obvious, therefore, that in this context the
recent withdrawals of United States troops dwindle to
insignificance and do not in themselves warrant any
response from the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam or the
National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam. American
troop reduction does not represent a reduction of military
activity or an abatement in the bombing and destruction
that the heroic people of Viet-Nam have endured all these
long years.
47. The President of the United States declared before this
Assembly on 18 September 1969 that what the United
States wanted for Viet-Nam was not important--what was
important was what the Viet-Namese themselves wanted.
He declared that the South Viet-Namese had “the basic
right to determine their... future” without “outside”
intervention [1755th meeting, para. 54].
48. Coming from the President of the major Power that is
intervening now in South Viet-Nam that is indeed an
amazingly ironic statement. One fails to comprehend the
logic that permits the Americans to accept that the
activities of the South Viet-Namese Liberation Front, even
if aided by the North Viet-Namese, can be considered as
unjustifiable foreign intervention, while the American
military machine, aided by Australian, South Korean, New
Zealand, Thai and Filipino forces, can legitimately and
justifiably bring death and destruction to the poor people
of Viet-Nam. If we are to exclude foreign interference we
must recognize that it is the interference of the United
States that must come to an end. It is the interference of
the United States which is hindering the Viet-Namese from
determining their own future.
49. The President of the United States tells us that: “the
people of Viet-Nam, North and South alike, have demonstrated
heroism enough to last a century” [ibid., para. 61].
Let me say that they have demonstrated that heroism
mostly in their relentless struggle against American domination.
They certainly now deserve to live in peace. Let the
United States unconditionally withdraw its troops so that
the Viet-Namese may live in peace. The land is theirs and
they ought to be masters of their own destiny.
50. It is ironic that the President of the United States
should state without qualification that his country has not
turned away from the world. Some of us cannot help but
wish that it had. Some of us cannot but feel that the world
would be a better place if it were free of American orbiting
spies in the sky, tree of their intelligence ships, free of their
military bases, their loaded aid, and the pervasive machinations
of the Central Intelligence Agency—free, in short. of
all the devices and intrigues that United States imperialism
has been employing to impose its will on the world in the
name of “freedom”. It is curious that the brand of freedom
advocated by the United States is always espoused by
leaders who are discredited in their own countries, and
embraced by reactionaries and quislings—men who have had
a history of dishonest collaboration with foreign Powers
occupying their countries. That is certainly the case in
South Viet-Nam and is true of the Chung Hee Park régime
in South Korea; it is certainly the case in many other parts
of the world.
51. In South Korea the United States has supported its
presence by advancing the palpably false claim that its
armed forces are there to deter aggression. It should be
obvious that that is a bogus claim, since it is the very
presence of foreign troops in South Korea that has been the
major source of tension in the area, The incursions of the
American spy-ships and airplanes into the territory of the
Democratic Republic of Korea have sometimes been deliberately
provoked in order to see, as one observer put it,
how other side reacts. The case of the spy-ship Pueblo is
too recent and too well known to need any comment.
Major-General Gilbert H. Woodward even signed a written
confession on behalf of the United States Government on
23 December 1968, admitting guilt for that inexcusable
infringement of the sovereignty of another State.
52. It is, however, a matter of great concern that the
United States presence in South Korea is justified in the
name of the United Nations; it is regrettable that the
United Nations should tolerate this abuse of its name.
53. Yet one is heartened and encouraged to see that in
Viet-Nam and in Korea, as well as in the Middle East, the
tide is turning and the era of imperialist domination is
constantly receding. One would wish that the United
Nations had played an active role in bringing to an end this
unhappy state of affairs. The United Nations, having grown
out of the pain and turmoil of the Second World War, out
of the fight against fascism, should have continued to be an
Organization that united all the forces that had fought
against oppression and injustice. Yet this was not to be, in
spite of the awareness that in order to be able “to save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, “... we
are expected”-in the words of the late Secretary-General
Dag Hammarskjöld —“to succeed where our predecessors
failed”.
54. We in the Sudan believe that the United Nations is
capable of such achievement. We also believe that in the
world of today, which is characterized by fundamental and
rapid changes in the relationships of nations and peoples
having different cultures and social systems, our efforts
should be geared towards transforming the United Nations
into a universal organ capable of drawing together the
multifarious interests of humanity in general, and act
towards allowing it to deteriorate into an instrument of
policy for those who already wield too much power and
exert unlimited influence.
55. It is our conviction that only the achievement of true
universality can save this Organization from falling victim
to its own shortcomings. We cannot conceive of the
realization of that universality without the restoration of
the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the
United Nations. The case of the restoration of the lawful
rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United
Nations is based on considerations of historical fact, of legal
right, and of a correct appraisal of the political realities of
our present world.
56. The Government that succeeded to the treaty obligations
of the Charter of the United Nations after the
establishment of the Organization was the Government of
the People’s Republic of China, and not the Government of
Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan, The Government that ought to
assume the privileged position and obligations of a great
Power is the Government that is now in effective control of
almost 4 million square miles of the land mass of Asia,
inhabited by one fourth of the total of the world
population. it is therefore not only in furtherance of the
dignity and prestige of this Organization that the People’s
Republic of China should assume its lawful rights of
membership, but also in the interests of humanity. This is
now especially true since the People’s Republic of China is
one of the five nuclear Powers of the world.
57. The United Nations can continue to ignore China only
at its own risk and peril. Furthermore, the admission of
China to the United Nations will not only be a source of
strength to the Organization but will also herald the
admission of other countries that have an effective impact
on world affairs but that still remain outside the United
Nations. No country is too unimportant to make a
contribution to the work of this Organization. To attempt
to exclude certain countries can be motivated only by
factors that have nothing to do with the good of mankind
or the effectiveness of the United Nations. The Secretary-General
has recently reiterated the thesis first put forward
in the introduction to his annual report last year in
support of true universality and emphasizing the need for
the divided countries to take part in the work of the United
Nations. The case of the German Democratic Republic,
with its great industrial potential and capability of assisting
in the area of multilateral economic aid, may well be cited
in illustration of this point. This Organization cannot
continue to ignore the existence of the German Democratic
Republic and the contribution that it is capable of making
towards the enhancement of the effectiveness and prestige
of this Organization.
58. We believe that the realization of prosperity on a wide
scale and the attainment of peace and freedom for the
people of the world everywhere are closely connected. We
in the Sudan have realized that as Africans our freedom and
independence will remain incomplete as long as parts of the
African continent remain under colonial domination.
59. In the three African Territories of Angola, Mozambique
and Guinea (Bissau), Portugal continues its domination
of the African inhabitants. Portugal has over 60,000
soldiers in Africa engaged in the brutal suppression of
movements for national liberation of the African inhabitants.
The war waged by Portugal against the people in
those three African Territories is a conflict that constitutes
a real threat to peace and security in the area.
60. It will be recalled that frequently in recent months the
military forces of Portugal have crossed the borders of
independent African States, on the assumption that they
have a right of pursuit. They have thus infringed upon and
violated the sovereignty of those countries, whose response
has often been quick and immediate. Yet the incursions
continue,
61. Portugal stands condemned before the United Nations
family and before world public opinion for its defiance of
the United Nations resolutions and for its refusal to accept
the universal principle of the right of peoples to self-determination
and independence—a principle enshrined in the
United Nations Charter and in the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples [resolution 1514 (XV)]. The continued defiance of
this principle and the persistence in ignoring resolutions of
the United Nations should alert this Organization to the
need for more resolute action in support of the real forces
that will bring the downfall of Portuguese colonialism in
Africa. I refer to the forces of the African liberation
movements in those Territories.
62. The tragedy of Rhodesia continues to unfold in a
manner similar to the Palestine tragedy. Like the Zionists,
the white minority in Southern Rhodesia are appropriating
the land and depriving the indigenous people of Zimbabwe
of their birthright to their homeland. As a result of the
hesitant policy of the United Kingdom, the United Nations
has been forced to resort to measures which have continued
to be inappropriate and inadequate to deal with the
situation.
63. Before the unilateral declaration of independence, the
United Kingdom had challenged the competence of the
United Nations to deal with the situation in Rhodesia, but
once the unilateral declaration of independence was announced
Britain sought the help of the United Nations. The
United Kingdom did not heed the appeals of the Afro-Asians
to act promptly and to deal effectively with the
rebellion through the use of force The United Kingdom
resisted even the idea of using force and embarked on a
series of abortive negotiations with the rebels before
resorting to the ineffective application of economic sanctions.
64. While economic sanctions have failed to topple the
Smith régime, the fascist Rhodesian front is proceeding
with the enforcement of a system of apartheid more
repugnant than the South African system, having severed all
links with Britain and declaring that the country would
become a republic with a proposed racist constitution
depriving the African population of their fundamental
human rights and conferring title to half the land upon
5 per cent of the population—that is, the white minority.
65. We consider that the only effective solution of the
Rhodesian question short of the immediate use of force to
end the rebellion is the imposition of mandatory sanctions
on the whole of southern Africa. However, Britain has
made it quite clear that it is not ready to use force nor
ready to agree to a total embargo for political, legal and
economic reasons, and insists, together with its Western
allies, that the United Nations should pursue the present
course of action of denying recognition and maintaining
sanctions against the illegal régime. To us, the present
course is unacceptable because it is deceitful and ineffective.
66. It did not come as a surprise to us that while the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United
Kingdom as recently as yesterday [1759th meeting], was
warning the Members of this Assembly against unrealistic
proposals and precipitous action concerning the situation in
Southern Rhodesia, there was jubilation in the white racist
circles in Salisbury on the return of the United States
Consul-General to his post, which is interpreted, according
to The New York Times of yesterday, 22 September 1969,
”as a small token of American approval”. The action taken
by the United States and the interpretation of that action
in Salisbury is more important and more significant than
the pious hopes expressed by the United Kingdom.
67. Again, it is left to the people of Zimbabwe to intensify
its struggle for freedom; and again, the United Nations will
have a clear obligation, in accordance with its Charter
resolutions, to give that people all possible assistance. We in
the Sudan are pledged to give the peoples of Zimbabwe all
the assistance necessary to enable it to attain its right of
self-determination and independence.
68. The African population in South Africa continues to
live under the inhuman system of apartheid instituted by
the minority racist régime of Pretoria, which stands
condemned by all the world for the pursuance of policies
that are contrary to all standards of decency and justice.
The General Assembly, the specialized agencies and the
Security Council have repeatedly condemned the policies of
apartheid of South Africa. Yet all our pleas and exhortations
have fallen on deaf ears. Indeed, there has been an
intensification of these policies and an extension of their
application to other territories. Both Namibia and Southern
Rhodesia are now in the grip of this repugnant system.
69. The situation in Namibia remains unchanged; the
Government of South Africa illegally continues to administer
the territory and consolidate its control further by
implementing measures leading to the integration of the
territory into the system of apartheid, in contravention of
United Nations resolutions. The authorities of Pretoria are
enacting legislation leading to the dismemberment of the
territory by the creation of sixteen Bantustans, leaving the
rich and more developed part of Namibia under the control
of the white minority while the indigenous population lives
in transit camps and native reserves. Over eighty-one
resolutions adopted by the United Nations on the territory
have been met with total disregard by the South African
Government. The South African authorities’ refusal to
comply with United Nations resolutions rendered the
United Nations Council for Namibia powerless. The Government
of South Africa is carrying out a war of genocide
and repression against the Namibians. Its inhuman treatment
of the captured Namibians, who had been resisting
the illegal South African authorities, is contrary to all
accepted standards applicable to prisoners.
70. The United Nations has declared the presence of
South Africa in Namibia illegal, has condemned South
Africa for not complying with United Nations resolutions
and has affirmed the territorial integrity of the territory.
But since condemnation has been without result, the
United Nations must now proceed to adopt appropriate
steps to deal with the South African refusal to comply with
the provisions of its resolutions.
71. It is our unshakable belief that the traditional notion
”let him who desires peace prepare for war” is inconceivable
in the era of nuclear weapons. The total destruction of
mankind that may be caused by nuclear war makes such a
war differ from a conventional conflict not only in kind but
also and most seriously in scale. It is now well established in
amply documented evidence that even those who survived
the immediate destruction of a nuclear war would be
exposed to radio-active contamination, while the future
generations would suffer different and grave disabilities.
72. It is discouraging to note that while the progress in
disarmament has been very slow, nuclear technology has
proceeded at a formidable pace and is now within the reach
of a growing number of countries.
73. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons [resolution 2373 (XXII)/ has been a significant
landmark on the path towards achieving complete disarmament.
We sincerely hope that this Treaty will open a new
chapter in disarmament negotiations and will inspire members
of the enlarged Conference of the Committee on
Disarmament to direct their efforts towards achieving
concrete and effective measures for arms control.
74. My Government fully endorses the resolutions and the
Declaration of the Conference of Non-Nuclear-Weapon
States, dealing with questions of universal peace—in
particular, the security of non-nuclear-weapon States, cessation
of the nuclear arms race, general and complete
disarmament and the exploration of the means of harnessing
nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes. That is
an area in which the United Nations can achieve a great
measure of success. Let us hope that it will not be deterred
from pursuing that end. Let us hope that in the area of
peaceful reconstruction and development the United Nations
will be able to fulfil the promise of its early years.
75. The oppressed people of the world will not be
completely free unless they shake off the stranglehold of
neo-colonialism—the major oppressive force of our day.
Direct colonial rule has now all but disappeared from the
face of the earth. Since 1945 over sixty countries of Asia,
Africa and the Caribbean, inhabited by over one third of
mankind—have become independent. This has been the era
of the great dawn of freedom all over the world.
76. But the imperialist Powers were not willing to allow
freedom to see the light of day. They resorted to all
available means to suppress it. In many cases they drew up
the constitutions of the newly independent countries and
built up the leaders to whom they were to hand over the
reins of power. They instituted regional organizations
through which they exercised great influence in order to
safeguard their interests, and they made absolutely certain
of the dependence of the economies of the newly independent
countries on their own. That has been the insidious
and dangerous work of neo-colonialism since the end of the
last war.
77. The economies of many independent countries have
been infiltrated by the agencies of capitalist exploitation in
such a way that it has become difficult for those countries
to envisage a future where they can achieve any measure of
self-sufficiency.
78. The fallacy that the developed countries should
concentrate on the manufacture of industrial goods while
the developing or under-developed countries should devote
their labour to extractive industries and raw materials seems
to have taken hold to such an extent that it has become an
accepted tenet of national economic planning in some
countries.
79. The machinery of capitalist foreign aid has been used
extensively to further these neo-colonialist aims and to
foster a state of future dependence for a number of years to
come. In this connexion one must mention the unprincipled
use of economic aid as one of the weapons of Zionist
infiltration into Africa.
80. It is true that on the political level many of the leaders
reared by the colonial Powers who failed to live up to the
aspirations of their people were overthrown and replaced
by others who were more responsive to the needs of their
countries and the national aspirations of their people. Yet,
wherever the people were not vigilant, the agents of
neo-colonialism have been active in the other direction,
foisting decadent and corrupt leadership upon the people
and engineering the overthrow of progressive governments
in order to install régimes sympathetic to the neo-colonialist
aims.
81. The methods which these agencies, such as the Central
Intelligence Agency, follow in the realization of their
despicable aims include all kinds of subterfuge, such as
incitement to riot, strikes and assassinations. To strengthen
its hold over such countries, neo-colonialism has directed its
attention mainly to the sources of information and instituted
broadcasting stations, libraries and scholarships
wherever its agents have had the chance to do so.
82. On the strategic level, the forces of neo-colonialism
have military bases and aggressive alliances that encircle the
globe in the name of collective security. This is the extent
of the danger that the emergent countries of the third
world have had to face.
83. Yet there is hope—hope that people everywhere will
awaken to this danger and combat the rapacity of the
imperialists and their new weapons of oppression. There is
hope that the inherent weakness of neo-colonialism will
lead to its final end as the inherent weaknesses of capitalism
bring about its downfall. This hope will be realized when
the countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the
Caribbean recognize that the interests of their peoples are
best served by their marching together, alongside the
democratic forces all over the world, towards freeing
themselves from the shackles of neo-colunialism; when they
realize that the only way to attain real independence and
true freedom for their people is through being united.
84. Only in their unity is there hope.