39. I should like to begin my
intervention by presenting my most sincere congratulations
to the President on her election to the high office of
President of this session of the United Nations General
Assembly. In Somalia, during the days of our Trusteeship
under this Organization, we had a great champion for our
cause, our liberty and our independence in the person of
the august President of this General Assembly. I feel sure
that all will agree with me that the election of Miss Brooks
to this high office is a well-deserved and fitting tribute to a
distinguished career in international politics and in the
pursuit of international peace and world understanding.
Madam, I congratulate you in the implicit belief that this is
an honour which you have richly deserved.
40. In turning to some of the crucial issues before this
Assembly, I wish not only to outline the views of the
Somali Republic on those issues, but also to raise a matter
which is not, as such, on the agenda of this Assembly:
I refer to the authority of the United Nations.
41. Immediately after San Francisco, in 1945, there were
many people throughout the world who saw in this new
United Nations not only a symbol of mankind’s desire for
peace and decency, but also an embodiment of the
authority — I emphasize that word “authority“ — of the
community of nations. Millions of people from the emerging
nations were soon to share in this view of the
Organization, for it was through the United Nations that
their cherished goal of independence was reached. I may
add that the peoples of the new nations shared this view at
a time when, in the long-established States of the northern
hemisphere, disillusionment with this view and disappointment
with the Organization had already set in. We are now
in 1969 at a stage when disillusionment and disappointment
have spread among old and new nations alike.
42. We are, and have been for many years, witnessing a
decline in the authority of this Organization which will, if it
continues, destroy the high hopes upon which it was
founded. When we speak of hopes it is important to realize
that these relate to the issues of peace, security, human
decency and welfare, upon which the world structure of
human society depends.
43. There is one view, which may be right, that this is a
transitory phase. It is a view which assumes that somehow
rivalries and antagonisms between the great Powers themselves
and between other States will cease and that the
entire membership will one day again be united in the
pursuit of the aims and principles of the Charter. This may
be so, but I can discern no foundation of fact to support it.
Moreover, this view implies an acceptance of events in some
way beyond our control and produces indifference, or at
least inaction, in the face of this tragic decline of the
authority of the United Nations.
44. I cannot take that view; not because I am convinced it
is wrong but because I am convinced that mankind cannot
take the risk that it may be wrong. There is too much at
stake to leave matters to chance and to justify inaction or
indifference. I believe, therefore, that all Members must, in
their own interest and for the sake of their own people,
take positive action to restore the authority of the United Nations.
45. I trust, Madam President, that you will not regard
what I have just said as a digression from the issues before
this Assembly. It is my belief that it is vital to those issues,
for I would suggest that in each and every one of them a
clear test of the rightness of the decisions we shall reach is
to be found in the following question: “Does the decision
enhance the authority of the United Nations?” The
question is not “Does the decision coincide with my State’s
special interests?” or “Does the decision impose any
burdens or obligations upon my State?“ I do not, of
course, deny that such questions will be asked of themselves
by delegations, and should be asked, but we would be
deluding ourselves if we believe that in the answers to those
questions lies a true criterion of the rightness of action of
this Organization.
46. Permit me to ask my own question in relation to some
of the issues before this Assembly and, in so doing, disperse
any doubts about the relevance of my discussion of the
authority of the Organization.
47. In the Middle East this Organization has, for more
than 20 years, seen a total refusal by Israel to implement
the General Assembly’s resolutions relating to the Palestinian
refugees; neither repatriation nor compensation has
been afforded to them. Thus, for more than 20 years, one
and a half million people have been condemned to refugee
Status and denied elementary justice. Not all the humanitarian
efforts of UNRWA, to which I pay sincere tribute,
nor those of the Arab host States which have afforded them
refuge can compensate for the injustice done to these
people. When, I ask, will the Organization take the action
necessary to assert its authority?
48. It is this continuing injustice more than any other
factor, which has ensured that the Middle East is a constant
source of regional conflict and international insecurity. It
has been particularly disheartening to see over the past 20
years the ambivalent attitude shown towards this question
by powerful Members of the United Nations whose
influence, if powerfully exerted, might long since have
brought about a settlement. In times of crisis when violence
in the Middle East threatened international peace, it was
readily acknowledged that the failure of the United Nations
to settle the problem of the Palestinian refugees lay at the
heart of the Middle East question. Resolutions were
adopted affirming or reaffirming the need to bring about an
end to the plight of these people, but when the crisis and
the immediate danger to international security passed,
national self-interest and partisan views reasserted themselves.
A depressing pattern can be traced over the years,
either of the return to apathy or of open opposition
towards any effort to implement the relevant resolutions.
49. Following the June war of 1967, the four permanent
members of the Security Council voted in favour of a
resolution [242(1967)] which indicated the essential
principles that should lie at the basis of a settlement. As
recently as 20 September 1969, the Foreign Ministers of
the permanent members of the Security Council reaffirmed
that that resolution should be supported and carried out.
Yet not a single provision of that resolution has been
implemented. After more than two years, Israeli troops
remain in occupation of large areas of Arab territory as the
spoils of war.
50. This situation became even more untenable when the
Israeli authorities began to take illegal measures to alter the
status of Jerusalem. The necessity of ensuring that these
measures be rescinded is one on which the membership of
this Organization has reached almost unanimous agreement.
Yet, the Israeli Government continues to flout with
impunity the Security Council and General Assembly
resolutions on this question, and has openly stated its
determination to ignore the consensus expressed by the
international community.
51. Recent events, culminating in the desecration through
arson of the Al Aqsa Mosque, underline the necessity of
implementing United Nations resolutions on the status of
Jerusalem. The “relocation” of Arab families in Jerusalem
from their homes to areas decided on by the Israelis calls to
mind similar acts of injustice with ethnic motivations which
are at present being carried out in Rhodesia and southern
Africa. There should be no question that this is a case
where the United Nations needs to take action to ensure
that its decisions are carried out.
52. We should be under no illusions about the implications
for the Organization of what has happened in the Middle
East. If this Organization permits a State to acquire and
hold territory by force, the most basic principle of the
Charter — I refer to the prohibition of the use of force in
Article 2, paragraph 4 — becomes meaningless. This was exactly
the way in which the League of Nations spelt out its
own doom and initiated a chain of events leading to the
Second World War.
53. I realize, of course, that these past two years have seen
very great efforts by Ambassador Jarring as Special Representative
of the Secretary-General and by the major Powers
to produce a settlement. These efforts were rightly and
properly made. But if, at the end of these two years, there
has been no settlement and no compliance with the
Security Council’s resolution, the time has clearly come for
this Organization to decide upon measures which will
compel respect for its decisions.
54. There are those who would point to the difficulties of
taking compelling action. Of course, difficulties do exist
but if this Organization is not prepared to face up to those
difficulties and to make sincere efforts to overcome them,
then it might as well admit that it has failed in its original
purpose and mission.
55. If I may turn to the situations in Rhodesia, South
Africa and Namibia, I would, in similar vein, suggest that
the time has arrived when the Organization must assert its
authority. No one doubts the justice of the stand taken by
the Organization; why, therefore, the endless delays and
hesitations? The answer, known to us all, is that some
special interests of particular States are affected. However,
we must reaffirm that this does not justify inaction by the
Organization. The Charter provides very wisely that measures
decided upon by the Security Council shall not be
jeopardized by difficulties which they may cause to
law-abiding States. Article 49 states: “The Members of the
United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in
carrying out the measures...“ and Article 50 elaborates on
this principle.
56. If certain powerful States fear some economic disadvantages
as a result of positive action by the Organization,
they must be reminded that power implies responsibilities
and requires foresight. It is far better to accept a temporary
economic dislocation of trade and see a just solution
reached than to allow these situations to deteriorate
further. For deteriorate they most certainly will, and if a
just solution is not imposed we shall see a holocaust which
will cause far greater economic harm and human misery
than anything that can be foreseen now.
57. I shall not dwell here in any detail on the problems of
southern Africa since our delegation will state the views of
my Government in detail at the Committee level, and since
our permanent representative has, adequately and ably,
stated the views of the Somali Republic at the Sub-Committee
on apartheid. I should like, however. to declare
that the Somali Republic, like many States all over the
world, believes that the situation in southern Africa
constitutes as grave a challenge to the United Nations as
any it has yet had to face. The problems of this region
challenge both the Organization’s authority and the fundamental
principles of human rights which are explicit and
implicit in the United Nations Charter.
58. In dealing with the problems of the Middle East and of
southern Africa, I have spoken of the need for the United
Nations to take compelling action to make its decisions
prevail. I anticipate the inevitable query as to the nature of
the compelling action about which I have spoken. I would
respond immediately that the choice is not between using
armed force on behalf of the Organization, or doing
nothing. Indeed, I would not suggest the use of armed force
when other methods of compulsion are available. We must
realize that mere resolutions, however formidable their
terms, which are not carried out do not constitute any form
of compulsion, and may ultimately diminish the authority
of the United Nations.
59. There remains, however, a vast area of political and
economic pressure which has a great potential as a means of
compulsion and which the Organization has only marginally
used, even then never with the unanimous loyalty and
sincerity of the whole membership. For example, the
Sanctions Committee, operating in relation to the Security
Council’s decisions on Rhodesia, is no more than a tentative
essay into that area of potential pressure upon recalcitrant
States. Again, let us not forget that the Charter lays great
store on measures of sanctions of a non-military nature,
such as those mentioned in Article 41. In fact, the great
underlying idea of these and other provisions of the
Charter, especially Chapter VII, is that such non-military
measures, if vigorously and loyally executed, will produce
the desired result without the need for ultimate recourse to
collective military measures. The Somali Republic considers
it necessary that either the Secretary-General or an appropriate
existing committee, or a committee to be formed for
this purpose, be asked to examine without delay and as a
matter of urgent priority, all non-military ways and means
of forcing compliance with decisions reached by the highest
organs of the United Nations. That organ would naturally
utilize the experience of the Sanctions Committee.
60. I hope that in thus speaking, I do not give the
impression that the restoration of the authority of the
United Nations means no more than the organization and
improvement of techniques of economic and political
coercion. There are, in fact, many other issues before this
Assembly to which the question of authority is relevant in
other ways.
61. Allow me to refer to the question of the peaceful uses
of the sea-bed and the ocean floor beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction and in particular to the excellent
report of the Secretary-General [see A/7622, annex II]. I
am, frankly, apprehensive that in this matter of tremendous
potential importance, a regime will be introduced which
will reduce the United Nations to little more than a registry
of claims and a disseminator of information on current
activities. I pose the same question; can we not, nay, must
we not, devise a regime which would give real authority to
the United Nations?
62. In relation to the several items upon our agenda which
stem from the decolonization process, it is apparent that
some Member States continue to defy the authority of the
Organization, either to reject the right of self-determination
of peoples or to restrict or reinterpret that right in a
manner quite contrary to that which the General Assembly
has laid down. The Somali Republic concedes to no State a
more ardent support of this imperative principle of peaceful
evolution of society than its own. The Somali Republic is
completely and utterly opposed to the continuance of alien
rule over peoples that desire to shape their political future
in some other way. This is a problem which vitally affects
the Somali Republic and upon which it has long sought an
assertion, by the United Nations, of a consistent stand on
principle. Nothing can more undermine the authority of the
United Nations than to see deviations from the principle of
self-determination by exceptions and qualifications, which
may satisfy some alleged or short-range interests of particular
States, but which are clearly inconsistent with that principle.
63. There is a quite genuine concern with the practical
implementation of the right of self-determination in cases
where economic, geographical and other considerations
raise doubts about the viability of particular territories once
they have gained independence, or in the case of the
Balkanization of an existing sovereign State. This concern is
real and must be treated quite separately from the more
spurious reservations about which I have just spoken.
64. Having spoken of self-determination as one basic
human right, allow me to refer to other matters on our
agenda concerning human rights. I believe that we now have
sad, and indeed appalling proof of the necessity for some
action by this Organization to safeguard human rights
during armed conflicts. In view, especially, of the terrible
suffering imposed. for years upon innocent civilians, men,
women and children, in Viet-Nam, the last sessions of this
Assembly, as well as the Teheran Conference of 1968,
adopted extremely important resolutions; but those resolutions,
again, have proved insufficient. In the same way, the
Middle East conflict of June 1967 and the ensuing
occupation of Arab territory by Israel created a situation in
which there was a clear need to protect the rights of the
Arab civilians within the occupied territories. This Organization
has now seen report after report indicating the need
for vigilance. Arbitrary detention and violence against
civilians, the taking or destruction of property and the
desecration of places of religious worship, these are all
incidents which are known to have taken place. Many
people, perhaps naively, had believed that the right of the
civilian inhabitants would be amply protected under the
Geneva Convention of 1949, to which Israel is a party.
However, at no stage has Israel appointed a Protecting foul
Power or requested or allowed any organization, even the
International Committee of the Red Cross, to act as a
substitute therefor. In short, that Convention has remained
without any form of supervision as required by its terms.
This breach of the Convention is not answerable by
arguments about the need for protection of the human
rights of Jews in Arab countries, for the two situations are
not parallel and were never treated as parallel in the Geneva
Convention.
65. There is, of course, a quite separate issue, namely, the
reed for a more effective machinery for supervision of
human rights, outside the context of armed conflict. The
Somali Government supports the proposition that there
should be a United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights. However, the crucial question will be his authority
and, through him, the authority of the United Nations. The
situations in which there is the greatest need for such a
United Nations “presence” or authority are, by definition
those in which the territorial State is least likely to consent
to such a “presence”, that is, to respect such authority.
Perhaps the Assembly did not go far enough in the Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights of 16 December 1966 [resolution 2200 A
(XXI), annex]. Perhaps the Assembly should, under particularly
grave circumstances, presume a Member to have
violated its obligations under the Charter respecting human
rights, if and when such a State refuses to permit a United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights or an
analogous organ to exercise his or its authority. If we fail to
ensure, in one way or another, the exercise of such a
function on behalf of the Organization whenever an urgent
need exists, our decision on this item will have done very
little to enhance the authority of the United Nations.
66. There is one more issue, relevant to my theme on the
authority of the United Nations, on which I should like to
state the views of my Government, and this is the question
of the restoration of the rights of the People’s Republic of
China in the United Nations. The arguments in support of
seating the representatives of the largest nation State in the
world, a State which is also a nuclear Power, would seem to
be obvious. They have been stated often enough in this
Assembly and they are given added weight by the reference
last month of the Secretary-General to the “mad mo-
momentum” of the nuclear arms race, and to his appeal that
every Government should make “serious attempts... to
associate in one way or another all five nuclear Powers with
the negotiations for disarmament” [A/7601/Add.1,
para. 45]. We cannot ask a State to respect our authority
when we exclude that State from participation in our
decision-making machinery. In addition, we cannot expect
the authority of the United Nations to carry full weight if
the principle of universality is ignored. Suffice it for me to
say that my delegation will support, as it has always done,
any resolutions that would enable the representatives of the
People’s Republic of China to take their rightful place in
this Assembly, in the Security Council and in all the bodies
of the United Nations.
67. I should like to conclude by saying that what is at
faults not the Charter of this great Organization; what is at
fault are not the purposes and principles of this Organization,
on the contrary, those purposes and principles are and
remain true and sacrosanct. Nor can one attribute the
world's sorrow and concern to all the various details of the
functioning of the United Nations. What is urgently needed
is the solemn and sincere rededication of all the Members to
the basic ideas of the Charter. If, however, some States are
unwilling to do so, then the letter and spirit of the Charter
itself demands that we do not close our eyes but act with
that measure of energy and resolve dictated by wisdom,
before it is too late.