1. Mr. President, first of all, I am delighted to fulfil the pleasant duty entrusted to me by my country of extending to you congratulations on your unanimous and deserved election to the high office of President of the current session of the General Assembly. The General Assembly was wise to entrust its work to such a distinguished diplomat who has to his credit many eminent qualities. My delegation attaches special importance to your election in view of the contribution of the Republic of Guatemala, the country which you so ably represent, and the great Latin American peoples to the evolution and jurisprudence of the United Nations. My delegation has no doubt that you will conduct the business of the twenty-third session of this Assembly to a successful conclusion.
2. Let me also take this opportunity to tender my congratulations to Mr. Manescu, the Foreign Minister of Romania, who presided with outstanding skill over the long and complicated twenty-second session of the General Assembly which ended last month. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, deserves our congratulations and encouragement for the efficient and persevering work that he has rendered in the relentless effort to find solutions to the conflicts which threaten world peace and security.
3. It was a proud occasion for my delegation when it co-sponsored the resolution for and witnessed the admission of the Kingdom of Swaziland to membership of the United Nations, not only because this brings us nearer to the objective of universal membership of this Organization but also because the new Member is a young and sovereign State dedicated to the principles of democracy and human dignity, putting to shame its foreign-dominated neighbours who are bent on the diabolical policies of apartheid and Portuguesism.
4. The general debate is and has always been an occasion for the leaders of delegations to review the state of the world, assess the achievements and failures of the United Nations and rededicate themselves to the principles of international peace and security and the pursuit of man’s prosperity, happiness and dignity, as well as the avoidance of the scourge of war which, twice in our lifetime, has caused untold misery to mankind.
5. The authors of the United Nations Charter conceived a framework within which the causes of war had to be fought on a multidimensional basis: through debate of international issues, as we are doing now; through a watchdog institution for the maintenance of international peace and security, which is assigned to the Security Council; through economic and social machinery; and through the legal approach. From this Assembly have emerged pronouncements of great international significance: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples, to mention only two.
6. The framework for achieving the objectives of the United Nations is basically sound; it is only that certain countries or groups of people have tended and tend to work against the realization of those objectives.
7. The survey of the situation in southern Africa reveals gross violations of the United Nations Charter committed by the white minority régimes. The vile rebellion in Southern Rhodesia is almost three years old, and yet the so-called administering Power has deliberately resorted to the most ineffective methods of dealing with it. Britain has come to the United Nations with half-hearted measures to bring the rebellion to an end, while at the same time opposing measures proposed by the peace-loving States as the only means to crush the rebellion. Britain has, instead, continued its policy of double dealing in the matter, that is, condemning the rebellion and yet negotiating with the rebels. We have witnessed with utter dismay the talks which were held between the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Harold Wilson, and the Rhodesian rebel leader, lan Smith, on board the toothless Tiger; British secret envoys to Rhodesia, Mr. James Bottomley’s recent visit to Rhodesia, and the present talks going on between the British Prime Minister and the Rhodesian rebel leader on board the Fearless, a British ship currently cruising off Gibraltar.
8. With all this in mind, we are left with the impression that British duplicity is bottomless. Zambia has consistently called for the use of force as the only measure and as the only sure way of ending the rebellion. In this call we have been joined by our sister States in the rest of Africa and Asia. The Security Council, in its resolution 253(1968) of 29 May 1968, called on all States to render moral and material assistance to the liberation forces in their just struggle for freedom and independence. I should like to use this rostrum to appeal to all the nations of the world to adhere faithfully to this United Nations resolution. We have now and again called for the release of the African leaders in Zimbabwe from detention and restriction so that they can effectively participate in determining the destiny of their indigenous land.
9. The majority of inhabitants of that country have been relegated to the role of spectators in a political drama whose vicious theme and horrifying acts equal that monstrous tragedy of malevolent South Africa. The state of emergency which was enforced before the illegal declaration of independence has continued to be extended for three monthly periods on grounds of insecurity on the part of the white minority régime, hence giving the rebels wide powers, including censorship, imprisonment without trial and economic control. It is clear to us that Britain is preparing a sell-out to the rebels during the current talks on the high seas. We have a genuine fear that the rights of the four million people of Zimbabwe will be sacrificed on the altar of expediency regardless of the consequences of such regrettable action on the future of that country. No settlement, negotiated or otherwise, can be satisfactory or just unless it recognizes in full the fundamental principles of freedom and justice for every citizen in Rhodesia and the right to a decent life, the right to liberty and security for all people regardless of their race, colour or national origin.
10. We remain firmly convinced, now probably more than ever before, that no settlement can guarantee peace and stability unless it gives full expression to the wishes of the majority whose rights have for a long time been the subject of a series of blatant violations by a racial minority for their own selfish interests. The views of the representatives of the people cannot be ignored if it is considered that the results of the current talks are to be the basis for the establishment of a government which would be responsible for the development of Southern Rhodesia and its people as a whole. The abandonment of the fundamental principles of freedom and justice on the part of the British Government would have dire consequences for everyone in Southern Rhodesia, and the losers in the final analysis will be the white people. The responsibility for ail this will lie with the British Labour Government.
11. Despite our belief that force is the only answer to the rebellion in Rhodesia, we have participated in the implementation of the Security Council resolutions on Rhodesia. In doing so, we have incurred damage to our economy, as economic sanctions have been more felt in our country than in the colony against which they are aimed. Our report to the Secretary-General, in terms of Security Council resolution 253 (1968) of 29 May 1968, gives the full picture of the extent to which our economic well-being has been damaged.
12. In pursuance of that resolution, Zambia has refused to allow persons using Southern Rhodesian passports entry to Zambia, without particular humanitarian reasons, and has insisted that all persons entering Zambia from Southern Rhodesia should disavow the illegal Southern Rhodesian régime’s cause. No organizations are permitted to exist on Zambian territory which encourage emigration to Southern Rhodesia. The Government of the Republic of Zambia has no trade or consular representation in Southern Rhodesia and does not permit such representation in Zambia. The Zambian Government stopped all flights to Rhodesia from 1 January 1968, well in advance of the United Nations resolution, and does not permit other airlines to operate to Southern Rhodesia from Zambian airports. This action has been taken at considerable cost to the Zambian national airline, and to Zambia’s national tourist industry.
13. The question which we have to ask ourselves is: Are we going to watch passively the violation of human rights in Southern Rhodesia, the illegal hangings and the threat to international peace and security? Already the freedom fighters have resorted to armed struggle to liberate their country as they have been denied peaceful means to achieve their legitimate objectives towards independence and self-determination. South African troops have entered the rebel colony to bolster its military defences against freedom
fighters; and yet the so-called administering Power has done nothing about it. We have called for the use of force not because we are blood-thirsty or because we hate Europeans. The President of the Republic of Zambia, Dr. Kaunda, has made it quite clear on innumerable occasions that the use of force in Southern Rhodesia at the beginning of the rebellion or now would prevent a more violent and bloody conflict that is sure to happen in that country in the future.
14. In the introduction to his annual report [A/7201/Add.1] the Secretary-General has stated that the situation in South Africa constitutes a threat to world peace. In a statement to the Assembly of African Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity held in Algiers, the Secretary-General observed:
“The continuing enforcement by the South African Government of its policies of apartheid, including recent attempts to extend the philosophy of racial discrimination and segregation to neighbouring territories, has given rise to a loss of faith in many quarters in the possibility of peaceful evolution towards a society based on justice and equality.”
15. The situation in South Africa is depressing and contrary to the optimistic picture given by Dr. Muller, the South African Foreign Minister, a few days ago [1680th meeting]. The evils of apartheid have been brought to the attention of this august Assembly. What is more agonizing to any lover of human liberty is the pernicious and degrading nature of that infernal policy. It is a policy which is incompatible with human dignity; it is a policy which flagrantly violates the Charter of the United Nations. Of late, the South African Prime Minister has called upon Zambia to co-operate with him in this misguided task of opposing injustice abroad but at the same time embracing injustice in his homeland, where the indigenous people are subjected to the most oppressive political apparatus ever conceived by man. If Mr. Vorster could stop brutalizing his countrymen of black origin; if he could humanize his institutions and uphold human dignity; if he could allow all his countrymen to participate in the determination of their destiny; if he could wind up his police-state system; if he could work for economic and social justice for all, there would be no earthly reason why Zambia and South Africa could not develop harmonious relations to their mutual advantage. But as long as Vorster persists in his wicked apartheid policies there can be no compromise in Zambia’s stand against South Africa; nor can we compromise with a State where a white man’s wage in the mining industry is at least seventeen times that of his black counterpart, and where the latter pays taxes at an earlier age and continues to do so late in life.
16. The seriousness of the South African situation goes far beyond national statistics. The menacing aspect of it is often more traceable in its implications for world security. This régime is continually retreating more and more toward militarism as a means of guarding itself against peace-loving neighbours. Thus, emboldened by its military might stemming from the NATO military arsenal, it has threatened to attack Zambia, which is not a threat to it but only a critic of its misguided political and economic policies. My
delegation would like to assure the régime in Pretoria that no amount of military blackmail or of threats will deter us from pursuing a course of justice and fair play. No amount of violence or threats of violence, either within or outside South Africa, can extinguish the light of freedom or the quest for that freedom. Those NATO countries that have armed South Africa to the teeth, and continue to do so, should not be surprised if one day the whole of southern Africa is set aflame in a military conflagration with dire
consequences for the human race.
17. We have watched with dismay the extension of the iniquitous apartheid policies to the Territory of South West Africa, now appropriately named Namibia. The intransigence of South Africa and its refusal to grant landing rights to the United Nations Council for Namibia, on which my country is privileged to serve, is nothing but a continuation of its attitude of defiance of the United Nations authority over Namibia. Zambia appreciates the action taken by the General Assembly in establishing the Council for Namibia with the purpose of taking over the administration of that Territory from the control of the illegal régime of Pretoria. My delegation hopes that the permanent members of the Security Council will play an ever-increasing role in the legitimate efforts of the Council for Namibia, in its endeavour to establish effective United Nations authority over that Territory.
18. My delegation wishes also to draw the attention of this world body to the acts of aggression Portugal continues to commit against Zambia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Not only has Portugal bombed villages, but it has also cold-bloodedly murdered our nationals in our areas bordering on Angola and Mozambique. Appropriate action is being taken by my Government to bring these acts of aggression to justice.
19. When we look at the history of Mozambique and Angola and the so-called Portuguese Guinea, we see oppression of a barbarous nature. For here we have a backward nation in Europe still extolling the virtues of imperialism in Africa under the most shameful slogan of “Overseas Provinces”. What could be more immoral and blind than pretending in the late twentieth century that a small country in Europe, itself oppressed, has any moral or political claim over so vast and far-away lands? Do the Portuguese still really think that they can continue to suppress the infinite desire of mankind to be free?
20. The United Nations has no doubt played no mean role in the over-all decolonization process. We in Zambia still hope that, as the indigenous victims of archaic Portuguese colonialism rise increasingly to assert their rights to self-determination, this Organization will rise to what is expected of it in championing those human rights. Zambia, therefore, calls upon this world body to join it and Africa in condemning in no uncertain terms the retrogressive and oppressive Portuguese régime. Furthermore, Zambia wishes to renew its appeal to Portugal’s NATO allies to give renewed attention to the fact that Portugal is furthering NATO’s interests in a most inhuman but eventually fruitless way. We hope that the new administration in Lisbon will depart from this negative policy in order to bring about progressive and just reforms in the administration of its colonies to prepare them for independence.
21. In West Africa, an arms war rages on. The conflict between Nigeria and Biafra deserves the attention of the world body because, instead of the conflict taking a localized course, Britain and Russia — what a queer combination of agents of bloodshed — have come in and therefore made a peaceful solution very difficult. The situation in Biafra has taken on the character of genocide. We in Zambia deplore the role of militarism in the conflict. We have recognized the Republic of Biafra because we know that real unity between peoples cannot be achieved through mass and indiscriminate slaughter. My delegation would like to make it abundantly clear that our recognition of Biafra was not motivated by any imperialist tendencies, as suggested in certain quarters. Zambia condemned secession in Katanga; it still condemns secessionist movements in that part of the world. If Zambia had any imperialist designs on any part of Africa we would have been the first to recognize Katanga, but we did not do so because secession there was engineered by imperialist forces outside Africa. Our anti-imperialist stand cannot be doubted even by the imperialists themselves. We also know that by any definition of a people Biafrans are highly qualified and capable of running their own affairs. Zambia is happy to note that the Organization of African Unity has at least called for peace in the area — but it must be an honourable and just peace. We believe that peaceful conditions are a necessary prerequisite to any meaningful negotiations.
22. Whatever happens after the current Nigerian-Biafran confrontation, we believe lasting peace will be possible only if achieved through mutual discussions and in just conditions. To that end, Zambia proposes that those supplying arms to one or both sides should cease forthwith so that meaningful negotiations can be initiated. We feel that the United Nations, in fulfilment of its universal mission in accordance with Articles 11, 12 and 35 of the Charter, should take up this vital question and play a positive role in bringing about peace in the area. This Organization cannot go to Biafra at the invitation of Nigeria to witness passively the destruction of lives and property in Biafra.
23. As we are gathered here, the situation in the Middle East continues to grow worse. It has been Zambia’s consistent contention that the way to peace in that area will not best be found by interference from big Powers, nor will it be discovered with the tool or threat of war. Yet almost all the variables in that situation are increasingly pointing to a renewal of war. Zambia cannot rejoice at the idea that ever since June last year the situation has remained tense. So long as Israel refuses to accept the fact that there cannot be peace while it occupies Arab territory through aggression, the world will continue to rise to the crash of cannon fire.
24. Zambia is fully aware that hollow victories can never be a substitute for permanent solutions in the field of international or indeed human relations. The basic considerations in the Middle East are and should be seen to be humanistic. It is the realization and acceptance of the fact that all the peoples of the Middle East have a right to exist that has made Zambia’s stand remain as follows: first, that loss of human life and damage to property must be deplored; second, that Israel’s withdrawal from Arab territory occupied after the war of last June should be recognized as a prerequisite to any meaningful peace talks; third, that the plight of Palestinian refugees should be given humanistic consideration and action; fourth, that big Powers should stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, to facilitate the taking of independent steps by the peoples of the Middle East themselves.
25. The Middle East problem is of great concern to Zambia because it is basically human and also because it clearly illustrates gross big-Power interference in relations among smaller Powers. Thus, this problem cannot be a matter of indifference or disinterest to us.
26. The question of Viet-Nam casts a very dark shadow on the history of mankind. In that situation the basic question is one of self-determination for a people.
27. Here we see one of the militarily and economically biggest Powers on our planet combating a young nation, whose resoluteness cannot be subdued through gun power. If only we mortals could one day realize that the human quest for freedom cannot be extinguished through physical injury, then some of these problems would not arise. Zambia has always held and still holds that peace would be possible in Viet-Nam if the invading forces realized and accepted a number of facts.
28. First, the Viet-Namese have a right, like anybody else, to determine the course of their own history. Those who tell the world that they are in Viet-Nam to serve the cause of democracy should know that you cannot bring democracy to a country if you are out there deciding the content of the democracy you would like to see there. It is a legitimate democratic right for the Viet-Namese to choose their own system. Herein lies the root of self-determination.
29. Second, the National Liberation Front is a legitimate force in the South Viet-Namese political system and as such the world should not pretend to be oblivious of the fact that that organization will have a great impact on the course of the history of that country.
30. Third, a peaceful solution involving a democratic sounding of the thinking of the South Viet-Namese on their future is a necessary step.
31. Zambia is happy that peace talks have opened in Paris, but we can never be complacent about their success until we see a more serious and determined effort among those attending the talks to move fast to eliminate the root causes of the war, which has already claimed a high toll of innocent civilians. As things stand, we are saddened to note that, as the talks go on, someone else in power is saying that his country’s withdrawal would not be effected without honour. Human history shows us that when leaders start to talk in those terms the sentiments of nationalism and the elusive concept of power can dangerously overlook the basic human feelings. There must therefore be renewed efforts to find a peaceful solution to the problem.
32. The recent events in Czechoslovakia have shocked the conscience of mankind. The President of the Republic of Zambia roundly condemned Russian military intervention in Czechoslovakia. Permit me to quote from the speech I made in the National Assembly of Zambia on 22 August 1968 — a speech which was circulated on 23 August as a document of the Security Council:
“When today the whole world was stunned by the news of Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, President Kaunda described this outrage as ‘naked aggression’. Aggression indeed: for it is unthinkable that the Soviet Union, which has not failed to condemn colonialist and imperialist acts of aggression against colonial peoples, should find herself committing this monstrous act full of dire consequences for humanity and for the lovers of fundamental human rights.
“What right has any nation, big or small, nuclear Power or non-nuclear Power to impose its will on another nation by force of arms?"
33. In our approach to the problem of intervention in the domestic affairs of States and the protection of their independence and sovereignty, we shall always continue to be guided by resolution 2131(XX) of 21 December 1965, in paragraph 1 of which the General Assembly solemnly declares:
“No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are condemned.”
It is our hope that all States, and especially those which initiated resolution 2131(XX), will take the lead in adhering to that solemn Declaration.
34. I said earlier that the United Nations has done some good work for humanity. Yet one cannot help admitting that some of the tension in the world is a direct result of the fact that the United Nations has, at times, tended to be an instrument of certain strong nations or groups of nations whose interests are deemed to be defensible at all times. This divisive tendency cripples the smooth operation of the United Nations. There can be no logical, moral or other justification other than archaic nationalism for the continued exclusion of the People’s Republic of China from membership of this body.
35. Why do some countries insist that the People’s Republic of China, with its 800 million people, an effective Government and super-Power, whose impact, not only on the future of Asia but also of the world, will be felt even more strongly in future, should not be a Member, while a vanishing satellite of another Power should not only be given recognition in the General Assembly but also have a permanent seat in the Security Council? This situation surely defies human reason; and the United Nations, by the standards of human reason should reverse this situation and accord the People’s Republic of China its rightful place in the chambers of this Organization. In order to be an effective instrument for peace, the United Nations must, of course, not deceive itself as being capable of operating effectively without the participation in its functions of one of the most powerful nations on earth.
36. Zambia voted against the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons because we want general and complete disarmament. This is also a universal wish. Any meaningful treaty must meet the very minimum requirements of operative paragraph 2 of General Assembly resolution 2028(XX) of 19 November 1965. These requirements are:
“(a) The treaty should be void of any loop-holes which might permit nuclear or non-nuclear Powers to proliferate, directly or indirectly, nuclear weapons in any form;
“(b) The treaty should embody an acceptable balance of mutual responsibilities and obligations of the nuclear and non-nuclear Powers;
“(c) The treaty should be a step towards the achievement of general and complete disarmament and, more particularly, nuclear disarmament;
“(d) There should be acceptable and workable provisions to ensure the effectiveness of the treaty;
“(e) Nothing in the treaty should adversely affect the right of any group of States to conclude regional treaties in order to ensure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.”
37. As far as Zambia is concerned, the Treaty did not meet those very important requirements. “Non-proliferation” means preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to those who do not have them, and preventing an increase in nuclear weapons among those who already have them. Horizontal proliferation has been blocked, but vertical proliferation is still wide open.
38. In the 1963 Moscow Treaty, the nuclear Powers assumed a commitment to reach an early agreement on banning all underground tests. Records show that since the Moscow partial test-ban treaty, underground nuclear tests have increased from thirty-six in 1964 to forty in 1965, and sixty in 1966.
39. The co-sponsors of Security Council resolution 255(1968) on security guarantees have undertaken to go to the aid of a non-nuclear weapon State party to the treaty which becomes a victim of an act or the object of aggression. But the history of the United Nations is replete with instances of inaction. And, in any case, what in fact defines aggression?
40. Furthermore, France has not participated in the work of the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee and has abstained, both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council, on the relevant draft resolutions pertaining to the Treaty. The People’s Republic of China is not a Member of the United Nations Organization and has not been associated with the Treaty. We consider this to be a serious disqualification of the Treaty. South Africa has what we prefer to call mercenary technical know-how and the means to acquire nuclear weapons. It voted for the Treaty; but even then, what good reason do we have to assume that South Africa will strictly adhere to its obligations under the Treaty, when it has consistently defied even the most elementary purposes and principles of the Charter?
41. While I have dealt mainly with the most obvious dangers that humanity has to recognize and act against, my delegation is equally aware of the economic and social situation in the world. The second session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, held in New Delhi, the results of which, as the Secretary-General correctly pointed out, were far below our optimistic expectations, should serve to remind us of the need to bridge the gap between the few rich nations and the many poor nations of the world.
42. In conclusion, I wish to declare our unequivocal support for using the machinery of the United Nations for the survival of mankind. Let us use this Human Rights Year to rededicate ourselves to the principles and ideals of the Charter. Zambia believes in the United Nations, its specialized agencies, and all its bodies, and our belief is motivated solely by a whole-hearted desire to co-operate with all peace-loving nations to give this Organization our greatest support.