108. Madam President, I am happy to offer you the
congratulations of the delegation of Senegal on your
unanimously welcomed election to the presidency of the United
Nations General Assembly. Your election at this twenty-fourth
session has a significance of its own, in that Liberia,
together with Ethiopia, has for more than a century been a
living symbol and an embodiment of certain hope, a symbol
of Africa’s hope for recovery of independence. The
confidence which the representatives of the nations
gathered here together have shown in you is reinforced by
the encouraging presence among them of the
representatives of 41 African States.
109. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a
tribute to the memory of President Emilio Arenales, who,
withstanding the disease which was already afflicting him,
conducted the work of the twenty-third session with a
self-denial and courage worthy of our respect.
110. The novelty, if any is to be sought, in this session will
not be solely connected with the importance of the
problems raised. Obviously it is not likely to be found in
such agenda items as peace and international security, or
the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Seek it
rather in the nature of certain matters which suddenly seem
more immediate and under your presidency cannot fail to
rouse an echo. First comes the granting of independence to
countries and peoples still dependent; secondly, the grave
matter of violations of human rights and fundamental
freedoms; and, as always, the practice of apartheid and
discrimination, which, despite everything, we must believe
will be overcome in the end by the mutual understanding
and respect of humanity. The mere interest of the
communities concerned demands it, because the solidarity
to bind them and their own aims together cannot be
achieved in a spirit of hatred; and a people cannot become
great by oppressing the weak.
111. Our session opens at a time when the most trying
problems facing the international community seem to be
those of the younger States, those least firmly rooted and
therefore the most vulnerable. Not that it could be
suggested that other States have no obstacles to overcome,
no external pressures or internal contingencies to allow for;
or that prosperity can be achieved without hard work and
innovation, without boldness and risk, without continuous
effort at reflexion, research and imagination. This is clearly
to be seen in the nearest developed countries to Africa,
those for instance of Europe.
112. Europe has, before our eyes, emerged from the ruins
of the Second World War, dressed its wounds, rebuilt its
economy; in a framework of multilateral co-operation it is
building an extended economy with the groups of States
that compose it. Beyond its own frontiers, in co-operation
with the Africa it spent so long in discovering, it is building
new links based on mutual respect of legitimate interests.
113. In spite of all Europe’s acquisitions, its resources in
men and capital, its industrial capacity, its high level of
development — in spite of all these factors together, or
perhaps as a result of them — Europe is now undergoing
visible changes in its political institutions, its internal
organization and even its economic and social structures.
These changes are affecting even its educational system,
untouched by time until now; but their most striking
feature is that they are the fruit of an aspiration which
seems characteristic of modern societies. Their purpose in
these countries is simply a rise in the standard of living; but
this, if one thinks about it, in the last analysis means an
improvement in the condition of mankind. Is not this
lesson even more important for the nations we call the third
world, no doubt by analogy with the “third estate“ of
former times? What should these nations derive from the
example offered by the developed countries, their political
and economic structures, if not the help necessary for their
people’s progress towards peace and justice, and, I might
add, for correction of the economic disparities between
them and those countries?
114. The first United Nations Development Decade is
drawing to a close. What are now the major trends or
prominent features of the world economy?
115. The industrialized countries are still in fact absolute
masters of the economy. They dominate it by their
technology, their equipment, their production and the
intelligence and efficiency of their organization. They hold
in their hands an infrastructure of transport, communications
and contacts covering the whole world, while the
developing countries are often still restricted by a
predominantly agricultural economy. In more than one respect they
still depend on the industrialized countries which control
the markets alike for commodities and for manufactures.
116. During the first Decade the richer countries have
managed to increase their annual incomes by 400,000
million dollars. Over the same period, all the incomes of the
developing countries added together have been less than
that sum. Their annual income, rarely more than $200 per
head, seems very low when we remember that in the
industrialized countries the average is between $1,000 and
$1,500, and in some countries even $3,000. Africa, at its
present rate of growth, would need more than 50 years to
double its income per head.
117. What the young countries expect from the international
community is a new definition of economic relationships
and a new form of participation in their development.
118. We know that there have been considerable changes
on the world market in the relative positions of
commodities and manufactures. While the index of agricultural
prices has scarcely gone up by 10 or 15 per cent, the price
of some finished goods has risen by 100 per cent. Is not the
remedy, as has already been said, reorganization of the
commodity markets? At any rate, it is closely bound up
with the revaluation and stabilization of agricultural prices.
Greater flexibility in some economic and financial legislation
would by itself be of some help. But might not the
solution one day be found in adopting a “correction index”
between agricultural prices and the prices of manufactures?
119. It has often been asserted that during the first
Decade there was no development policy. Surely the aim in
the second Decade should be to hasten the incorporation of
the developing countries in the circuit of the modern
economy. In place of the traditional exports of raw
materials from under-developed countries, there should be a
policy for the exploitation and industrialization of their
resources on the spot. The aim should be to build, with the
industrialized countries, an integrated economy inspired by
a will for understanding and co-operation, mutual assistance
and solidarity between all nations.
120. The first Decade had as one of its aims an annual
economic growth rate of 5 per cent, It seems to be accepted
that the second Decade might achieve an increase of 6 to 7
per cent in per capita income and of 8 to 9 per cent in
industrial production. Undoubtedly any such progress
would depend in the first place on the effort at development
made by the countries concerned, but also on the
contribution of the richer countries to this effort. To be
more effective, the 1 per cent of the gross national product
devoted by certain industrialized countries to development
assistance needs to be associated with a policy of increased
investment and economic promotion.
121. The community of nations certainly has the resources
and technology needed to solve the problem of
under-development; and seeing that it has those resources
the contrast is striking between the successes and achievements
of technology and science and the slow progress of humanity.
122. Certainly we do not regret the success of the new
human organ transplants, still less the tremendous achievements
of the American astronauts. There has never before
been such an impressive revelation of the human intelligence
and of the extent of its creative power; but shall the
great nations that have triumphed over space be powerless
in face of the cruel inequalities here on earth, among men?
123. When I was speaking a moment ago of the special
problems of the young States, I was thinking of the peace
hoped for by millions of men in various regions of Africa
and in the Middle East, still heavy with menace. I might add
also South-East Asia, and remark that after the halt in the
bombing of North Viet-Nam the withdrawal of non-Viet-Namese
troops might give new reason to hope for the
main goal — that is, peace — so eagerly desired from the
present negotiations.
124. The most sombre situation, however, is in Africa,
particularly in the territories still under the domination of
Portugal and still more in Rhodesia and Namibia. What does
the presence of Portugal in African territories stand for,
apart from the vicissitudes of history that have engendered.
all other forms of colonization in the world, even before
Africa? But since the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples the United
Nations has been devoting ceaseless effort to establishing
new relations for these peoples, based on the free
expression of their will and on respect for the human
personality. It would be sad indeed to continue to ignore
that fact and not to realize that the freedom fighters of
Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau), now struggling
for national liberation, do not regard Portugal as an enemy
for ever. The Portuguese repression is in a sense worse than
obstinacy: it is blindness. Recourse to violence cannot be a
constructive solution. Repression must cease, and then a
healthy confrontation and fruitful negotiation can take its
place to resolve the disputes which weapons cannot settle.
Has not the time come for Portugal to ponder on the
example of other peoples who have been colonizers and,
closer at hand, on the quite recent example of Spain and
Equatorial Guinea?
125. Another subject of preoccupation is the Rhodesian
question. Two communities are involved: 250,000 European
immigrants to Africa, and 4 million Africans, a
minority set against the authority of the country that has
given it its strength; four years of fruitless negotiation, an
arsenal of economic and diplomatic sanctions that are more
symbolic than effective. And the greatest mockery is that
the world no longer condemns unanimously a constitution
which gives a handful of 250,000 immigrants rights superior
to those of 4 million Africans! When all has been said — complicity
in weakness, collusion of interests, solidarity
between régimes which have a strange resemblance to other
pre-war régimes—our Organization certainly cannot forget
that abandonment of the weaker countries of Europe to
martyrdom did not in the event serve the peace.
126. As you have observed, I have taken a long time to
reach the painful conflict in Nigeria, that fratricidal struggle
which causes so much concern to all African States, since
all ate aware that within them is the seed of a similar
tragedy. African statesmen realize this, and have constantly
urged an unconditional cease-fire and negotiations which
would finally guarantee security of the person and property
of all, in a Nigeria which would retain its personality. How
can the division of any country and opposition between its
component parts be accepted today when everywhere we
have to think in terms of “economic units”, “large-scale
enterprises” and “regional groupings”?
127. My delegation’s feeling is that it is essential, above
all, to support the efforts to bring about reconciliation and
mutual understanding between those who are today in
conflict. This is surely in the first instance the task of the
Organization of African Unity. Nevertheless, it might be
asked whether an effort should not be made to dam the
supply of armaments and so silence the guns.
128. I have purposely left to the end the consideration of
two complicated situations, each in a country formerly
under League of Nations Mandate. I refer to the situation in
Namibia, and also, through a strange coincidence, to the
situation in the Middle East; for was not the situation there
virtually a result of the removal of the Palestine Mandate?
Is it not a result of the confrontation between Israel and
the Arab countries, created by the partition of Palestine?
129. Of course analysis is easier with hindsight. All the
same, we must admit that the course of events would have
been different if Arab Palestine had not been occupied. We
are likewise led to observe that the choice between
compensation and repatriation offered to the Palestinians
and the subsequent setting-up of the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
have never reassured anyone. However, 20 years after the
vote on the resolution which gave birth to Israel, a Security
Council resolution [242 (1967)] of November 1967 has
just defined the bases for a settlement which could put an
end to the Israel-Arab crisis.
130. Those bases lay down a framework which we must
never tire of repeating: respect for the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of States; unconditional rejection of the
annexation by force of the territory of one State by
another, and hence the withdrawal of the Israeli armed
forces from the occupied Arab territories; a just solution of
the Palestinian problem; and freedom of navigation on the
international waterways of the region.
131. The Arab States have bowed to the authority of the
Security Council of the United Nations. We must ask Israel
to respect international law. There is no other way to
guarantee to all a just and durable peace.
132. Recent events in Jerusalem and the criminal arson of
which we age all aware have brutally reminded the world
that to safeguard and protect the Holy Places the status
conferred by 13 centuries of history on the Holy City of
Jerusalem must be respected.
133. In conclusion, I will refer to the situation in Namibia.
Everyone knows that this territory was placed under
League of Nations Mandate in 1920. Everyone is aware
that, since the demise of the League of Nations, the United
Nations has assumed an identical role vis-a-vis the
international community. Accordingly it is easy to understand the
stupor provoked by the incredible judgment handed down
by the International Court of Justice in 1966.
134. South Africa’s attitude towards the United Nations
Council for Namibia is well known; the deliberate violation
and infractions of the population’s rights are no secret to
anyone; but none of these things can affect the legitimacy
of those rights.
135. My delegation does not believe there is any need for
greater emphasis in stating that Namibia is entitled to
independence, and in stating it with the serene conviction
of those who know that their cause is just.