1. It gives me great pleasure, Mr. President, to join, all those who have congratulated you on your election to the Presidency of the General Assembly. The choice of your name is well-deserved tribute to your high personal qualities and to the outstanding contributions you have made to the work of the highest international organizations. Also, it is a fitting tribute to your great country, with which, I am happy to say, my country has cordial relations of warm friendship. 2. We have before us the report of the Acting Secretary-General on the work of the United Nations during the past year [A/5201]. It is an important document, and I believe we should be grateful to the Secretary-General for drawing lip such a clear and comprehensive summary, thus enabling us to have a vivid picture of the activities of the Organization. In the introduction to the report [A/5201/Add.l], the Secretary-General draws our attention to some points the importance of which cannot and should not be under-estimated. I shall refer to some of them. 3. The Secretary-General points out the lack of progress With regard to the problem of disarmament. Now, as Chairman Khrushchev has stated in this hall — and rightly stated, for once — the question of disarmament is the question of questions, and one has to admit that in respect of a problem so vital for the future of mankind the United Nations has failed to help in finding any solution. We have to go even further, and state that the United Nations has been utterly incapable of dealing with the question of disarmament at all. 4. The Secretary-General also points out that, notwithstanding the efforts of the United Nations, the Organization again has failed to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, as required by the Charter. Indeed, the Secretary-General states that it has become abundantly clear that the rate of development has fallen far short of meeting the needs and demands of the peoples. 5. Again, the report mentions the part which the United Nations should play in promoting closer contact among Governments and in shaping decisions of individual Members, and the Secretary-General stresses that all too frequently this purpose has been defeated in the general debate. It should therefore not be a matter for surprise if the Secretary-General speaks of a "crisis of confidence" in the United Nations. My delegation believes that, there is a very real and serious crisis, which becomes deeper every day, and. if the trend now prevailing goes on much longer it seems hard to see how such a crisis can be surmounted. 6. But there are other very serious problems in the world, threatening the peace and security of all of us, with which the United Nations does not appear to be concerned. I am not going to elaboration them, except to mention the existing threat against the freedom of West Berlin, in violation of international agreements and responsibilities. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Secretary-General has very good reasons to refer to a "crisis of confidence". It is true that he believes that such a crisis may be overcome. On this point; my delegation also wishes to express its views, but I shall come to that later. 7. There is only one further point in this context which I venture to mention. The introduction to the report expresses the feeling that the General Assembly should indeed be a world parliament of mankind. It will be extremely dangerous if such an idea becomes one more slogan in the minds of the people. There is not, and there "cannot be, any analogy or connexion between a national parliament and the General Assembly. Before we start using this slogan it seems appropriate to know whether the General Assembly represents a united sovereignty, as national parliaments do; and whether the Members of the General Assembly periodically, stand for election, as happens with national parliaments; or whether Members of the Assembly may not be returned and maybe replaced by others, according to their performance and the views; of an electorate which in the case of the United Nations simply does not exist. These few questions show that the General Assembly has no sovereignty of its own, and also show how unrealistic it is — and how dangerous it may become — to be guided by meaningless slogans and to shape our thoughts and decisions accordingly. 8. I have gone through the report of the Secretary-General, and my, delegation wishes to bring up some of the many questions dealt with in that document. The first is the "question of Goa", and I am raising it not only because it is of interest to us but also because it raises issues - very important issues — of a general character which I believe the Assembly should consider with attention if we are not to pursue a course of action which will bring about the destruction of the United Nations. 9 . Ever since the Indian Union became an independent and sovereign State in 1947, its Government has claimed Goa, the reason for such a claim being that Goa is geographically contiguous to Indian territory. In a note addressed to the Security Council on 13 December 1961, the Indian Government stated once again that, since India had achieved independence, it "naturally" hoped that other foreign territories in the Indian sub-continent would be transferred to India. Naturally, indeed! We are not aware that the Indian Union, by becoming independent from the United Kingdom, has thus acquired at the same time a natural and inherent right to incorporate in its territory other territories which did not depend on British sovereignty at that time or at any time. Should it be otherwise, then all the countries which have achieved independence from the United Kingdom would also be entitled to incorporate neighbouring territories or countries, even though they have never been under British sovereignty. And then the Indian Union, if it possesses that "natural" and inherent right, may also claim neighbouring countries which have been under British sovereignty, only more so than in regard to those which were never a British responsibility. On the other hand, we are not aware that this God-given right of India may only be applied in respect of Portuguese territories, unless Such an application constitutes only the first step of the Indian Union along the path of the application of the same right of annexation to other independent countries which exist at present in the Indian sub-continent. 10. Then the Indian Government has officially stated that, being in favour of the independence of peoples, it would like to start negotiations for the transfer of power from Portugal to India. The conclusions to be drawn from such a statement are that annexation of a territory by India immediately gives to that territory the status of independence — while the integration of the same territory into another sovereignty gives it the status of a "colony"; secondly, that Indian sovereignty has to be considered better than and superior to any other sovereignty: and finally that the negotiations desired by India were not be conducted between the people of the territory and the responsible country, as required by the resolutions of the General Assembly, but between the responsible country and India and this merely for the purpose of transferring the territory to India. In regard to this last point, one has to note therefore that, when the Indian Government seeks to annex an alleged colonial territory, it demands that such negotiations ought only to consist in the transfer of the territory from the sovereignty to which it belongs to the sovereignty of the Indian Union, Since Indian sovereignty, in our humble view, is neither superior nor inferior to Portuguese sovereignty, we fail to understand how and why, in the case of Portuguese India, the territory would become any more independent than it was by the fact of its abandoning Portuguese sovereignty in order to be incorporated into Indian sovereignty. 11. Then, seeing the fallacy of all these arguments, the Indian Government appealed to other types of action. For fourteen or fifteen years, the Indian Government terrorized the population of Goa. Everything was tried — economic blockade, terrorism across the border, slanderous propaganda — and, being a liberal-minded Government, the Indian Government closed down Portuguese associations in Bombay, suppressed Portuguese newspapers, and dismissed and persecuted the many thousands of Goans who, although being in Indian territory, did not wish to lose their Portuguese nationality. At the same time the Indian Government appealed to political arguments, and these were, in substance, that Goa was a threat to the security of India. Indeed, 700,000 people were a threat to a nation of 450 million inhabitants. And still, in spite of all this, the Goans failed to be impressed — and Goa was peaceful, normal, enjoying an ever-increasing prosperity, and always displaying its desire to belong to the Portuguese nation. 12. Why was that so? What was the situation in Goa before Indian aggression? Goa had 4,500 civil servants, and, with the exception of ten technicians, they were Goans from the highest to the lowest rank. The police were all Goans. The municipal and legislative bodies were entirely composed of Goans, elected through direct, universal and secret suffrage; and the Goans since 1822 had been represented by their elected deputies in the National Assembly. The wealth of Goa remained in Goa, and the standard of life, in every respect, was between four and five times higher than in the Indian Union. There was religious freedom, no race segregation, no caste system. Goa was truly self-governed and self-administered, all its inhabitants exercising full political and public rights on a footing of absolute equality of opportunities and guarantees. But let us suppose for a second that the situation was different. Let us suppose that the situation was not satisfactory and in harmony with the United Nations Charter. Then the fact might have imposed upon us certain duties: but it would not have given the Indian Union any rights, unless the Government of India attributes to itself special duties to supervise international society and, single-handed, assumes prerogatives over the administration of other countries. The fact — the indisputable fact — remains that the Goans did not show any wish whatever to abandon the Portuguese nation, and it became intolerable to the Indian Government that the Goans did not display the, slightest desire to be merged with India, which is a country entirely alien to them. 13. Faced with hostility from the whole Goan population, either in Goa or abroad, faced with the clear- cut decision of the International Court of Justice of 12 April 1960, recognizing the legitimacy of Portuguese sovereignty, the Indian Union resorted to force and committed a barbarous and brutal aggression. 14. I am not going to elaborate on facts which are well known, but my delegation believes that some points are worth stressing. After the Prime Minister of India had stated: "The Portuguese would not be tolerated in Goa, even if the Goans want them there", it became increasingly dear that the Indian Government had decided to resort to sheer force. And then various and ridiculous pretexts to create friction and establish an emotional climate became a matter of routine; When India asserted that Goa was a threat to its security, we offered to negotiate an international guarantee which would ensure the neutralization of Goa. The Indian Government refused. When India claimed that there were border incidents, we offered to negotiate an. arrangement providing for the strict control of the border. The Indian Government refused. When India indicated that it might wish some railway and harbour facilities in Goa, we offered to negotiate in order to grant the requested facilities. The Indian Government refused, and every proposal, every negotiation was refused. The Prime Minister of India, respectful as he says he is of the wishes of the people, even stated that he would not accept a plebiscite — probably because the Indian Government knew that the results would be overwhelmingly against it, and also because it did not wish a plebiscite elsewhere in the Indian sub-continent. And, finally, the Prime Minister of India stated that his patience was exhausted and that there was no other solution but to annex Goa by military force. 15. That was the Prime Minister's great argument: his patience was exhausted. We are not aware of the validity of such an argument. But that was the prelude to the brutal invasion, and as a preliminary step accusations were thrown against Portugal to the effect that we not only were violating but also trying to conquer Indian territory. That we were trying to conquer Indian territory indeed. I do not believe that human imagination has ever provided a better display of simulation and falsehood. 16. We then proposed that an international commission of observers should be appointed forthwith to investigate the alleged violations of the Indian border by the Portuguese authorities. The Indian Government replied that the proposal was unacceptable because there was no border. And so, after having ignored the decision of the International Court, after having disregarded a last-minute appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and after having disregarded a majority vote of the Security Council, the Indian military forces, on 18 December 1961, attacked and later occupied Goa. Those forces were composed of more than 50,000 Indian troops, many Indian Air Force squadrons and the Indian navy. They were described by the Indian Government as "defensive forces”. Their purpose was said to be to "liberate" Goa, to protect it, and to avoid the "massacre" of the small Portuguese forces by the Goans. 17. Aggression is always aggression, but it is far more revolting when it is coupled with distortion and barefaced falsehoods. This feeling was well expressed by the Indian poet Don Morais: writing in the London Evening Standard, on 21 December 1961, he said: "I am an Indian, and on this day I cannot but feel ashamed." And he gave up Indian nationality. 18. What is the situation in Goa at the present moment, after the so-called "liberation"? A foreign priest who has escaped from Goa writes in the Mombasa Times of 28 April 1962: "Indian rule has not meant liberation but complete slavery." And he goes on: "The Goan people cannot even walk freely on the streets or attend the churches for fear of being robbed or assaulted by Indians." 19. And in an editorial the Indian Express of 16 March 1962 writes that crimes such as murder, rape, molestation and looting cannot be condoned in Goa, and then adds: "And the fact that in the inflated imagination of the local population our liberation forces, instead of ensuring security, should signify insecurity is deeply disquieting and even dangerous." I could mention many more quotations, but these are enough to convey a vivid picture, of Goa at present, under the colonial rule of India. 20. I shall just add a few details for the information of the Assembly. Unemployment is rising all the time in Goa. People have been deprived of their property and goods for the benefit of the invaders. Trade has been brought to a standstill: the importation of 146 types of goods has been prohibited, as one can see in the Indian Board of Trade Journal of 29 June 1962. Religious persecution has been introduced, and social and racial segregation has become wide-spread. The administration is now all Indian, and the police force is also all Indian, and all Goans are excluded. Wages and salaries have been lowered between four and five times, so as to bring them level with Indian standards, and accordingly the standard of living in Goa also has been lowered between four and five times. There is unrest among labour, and the miners have asked that Portuguese legislation should be put back into force again. The wealth of the mines, which has always remained in Goan hands, now goes to India, and the iron ore is feeding Indian industries. 21. Goa is being militarized. It is interesting to quote from the Goan Tribune of 29 April 1962: "It is understood that the Indian Navy is proposing to locate its aircraft base in Goa. Under this scheme, Dabolim airport will be operated by the Indian Navy." 22. Those who wish to keep Portuguese nationality are being persecuted and arrested, and Indian nationality is being forced on the people under duress. India had engaged itself in writing not to do this, and so in this respect once again the Indian Union is breaking all written engagements. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Goan people are fleeing their land of birth to avoid misery and suffering. Since December last, more than 3,000 Goans have fled to Lisbon, and as many to other parts of the world. In view of the foregoing, it seems appropriate to recall what the Prime Minister of India said before Parliament On 26 August 1954: "The freedom and rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution of India and which specifically refer to freedom of conscience, worship and practice of religion, will extend in full measure and in all their implications to these areas (of Goa). The special circumstances of cultural, social and lingual relations and the sense of a territorial group which history has created will be respected." Back in 1954, therefore, the Prime Minister of India recognized the special personality and individuality of Goa, which has no connexion with India. We now see how these promises are being fulfilled. The shock of dismay of the Goan population grows deeper every day, and we should not be surprised by the fact that the Goan Association of Nairobi, which represents tens of thousand of Goans and which is certainly free from any Portuguese influence, addressed a letter to .the Prime Minister of India on 26 February 1962, asking for the withdrawal of Indian occupation forces and of Indian administration and demanding, self-determination for Goa. The Indian Commission in Nairobi replied to this letter, on behalf of its Government, on 20 March 1962. I quote a passage from the Indian reply: "The Government of India fail to understand your reference to a plebiscite in the context of self- determination. Democracy does not envisage that parts of an integral nation should resort to any such process. Goa, Daman and Diu are not different countries despite their past occupation by a foreign Power." 23. So the Assembly can see that in 1954 Goa was considered by India as a special territorial group created by history; in 1962 there is no difference between Goa and the rest of India. Such is the painful plight of the people of Goa, and I will leave it to the Assembly to judge whether Goa has been "liberated" or is now, as is the case, under the oppression of foreign military rule. 24. But I said that the question of Goa raised in the report of the Secretary-General on which I am commenting, has a deeper meaning of a general character. I do not wish to tax the patience of the Assembly. I shall confine myself, therefore, to two observations. 25. Speaking before the Security Council in December 1961, the Indian representative stated that "Charter or no Charter, Council or no Council", law or no law, the Government of India was going ahead with the military invasion because "colonialism" was a permanent aggression against which one is entitled to react. This attitude of the Indian representative has never been denied or corrected by the Indian Government. This gives rise to far-reaching issues. In accordance with United Nations resolutions, in favour of which India has voted, Goa was a Non-Self-Governing Territory, and for such territories to achieve autonomy or independence the Charter and the resolutions of the Assembly envisage that certain principles be observed. But violent annexation by the Indian Union is certainly not one of those principles. Since the Indian Union has resorted to violent annexation, we wonder if the Indian Union proposes to annex only alleged Non-Self-Governing Territories which are contiguous to it, or even other territories which are geographically separated. This question seems to be pertinent because no reason can be seen, why the Indian Union will not apply to any Non-Self-Governing Territory the same principle, that is, violent annexation by India as a means of granting independence to a territory — which India has considered lawful in respect of Portuguese territories. But the remark made by the Indian representative before the Security Council to the effect that "colonialism" is a permanent aggression is far more grave. This new doctrine points to the aggressor: the Country which is responsible for the territory held to be non-self-governing. But it does not say who is the victim of such an aggression. As there are no objective rules of law in force to define who is being victimized by the aggression, one has to come to the conclusion that the victim is the country which claims to be the victim. But in order to put down an aggression one has to have the appropriate means, that is, one has to be strong. Therefore, the victim of a "colonial aggression" is the country which simply claims that quality and which is militarily strong enough to put down the aggression. In other words, the country which is able to wage war against the weak is the victim, and as it claims to be facing an aggression such a war becomes a just war and the country waging it is acting in self-defence. The question of colonialism, and the means to end it, becomes therefore a problem of transferring a territory from the sovereignty of a weak country to the sovereignty of a powerful country. This is where the new doctrine put forward by the Indian Union leads us. 26. But the violent annexation of Goa by India requires a second observation, which is the following. The grab of Goa is just the first-step in the drive of the Indian Government to secure political unity in the sub-continent of India. These have been other previous steps: Junagadh in 1947, Hyderabad in 1948. Then we have to recall the policy of extermination against the Naga people, who are claiming self-determination. We also know the problem of Kashmir, which is referred to in the annual report of the Secretary-General under the heading "the India-Pakistan question". The Indian aggression against Kashmir, a territory which rightfully belongs to Pakistan, is a further step of the drive I am referring to. And this should be a warning to all the small and weak neighbours of the Indian Union. They are next in line. And here I am not expressing a personal view or a personal feeling. I shall quote from the Ceylonese paper Daily News of 19 December 1961: "And countries like ours, neighbours of the vast Indian sub-continent, will inevitably feel a stirring of disquiet since her powerful and swiftly developing neighbour has chosen to use arms to end an argument". From another Ceylonese paper, the Cevlon Observer of 18 December 19611 quote: "The use of force by India is particularly disturbing for smaller nations who are neighbours, of, India. It creates a fear among India's neighbours who are far weaker than she is that similar military action may be used against them when the patience of India's leaders is exhausted that such problems as those affecting Indian minorities have not been settled." However, Indian dreams do not stop on the sub-continent. Years ago, the Prime Minister of India made the following statement, which seems to me pertinent to recall: "When we have achieved our sovereign rights, it is our intention to make East Africa part of the Indian Empire." And one must say that the Indian Government has not been slow in carrying out its intention to make East Africa part of the Indian Empire. 27. In this context, a few suggestions appear to be relevant. Why was the Indian Government so eager in supplying the largest contingent of troops to the United Nations forces operating in Africa? Why are the Indian officers and soldiers buying farms, plantations and other land property in that part of the territory where they are stationed? Why are the demobilized Indian officers and soldiers not returning to India? Let us not forget that there are already nearly one million Indians, in East Africa and elsewhere on the African continent. And I submit that the African countries and population should in time see these warning signs, which are merely a foretaste of Indian colonization and exploitation of the African peoples. These are facts which have to be brought out so as to place in the proper setting Indian friendship for Africa and its all too keen interest in African affairs, and also to provide us with a better understanding of the reasons why India claims the leadership of the African-Asian bloc in this Organization and elsewhere. 28. I am sure that the Indian delegation is going to deny all these facts and will once again come to this rostrum and play its usual part — that of a mediator between God and all of us, who are just poor mortals, and of providing us with some immaculate and selfless advice on other countries’ problems. 29. I now turn to other chapters of the Secretary- General's report, I wish to refer to what the report calls "the situation in Angola" and "questions" concerning Portuguese overseas territories. These problems, like others, will be dealt with elsewhere, at the appropriate time. However, in the course of this general debate some delegations have mentioned them and, therefore, it seems to me that it is fitting that my delegation should also deal with them. 30. We all know that the problems to which I refer have been allocated to three different Committees. On the appointment of those Committees by the Assembly, and on their illegality, my delegation has already expressed its views and strong reservations and I am not going to repeat them now. But those Committees have been very active during the past year and it appears useful to examine, although very briefly, the work that they have done. Again, my delegation will have more to say when the whole question comes up for debate in the appropriate Committee. At this stage, I merely wish to make one or two remarks. 31. As the Assembly may recall, there is first the Sub-Committee of five members. It has not yet presented its report, and so we do not know what its findings will be. But if we are to draw some conclusions from its previous report [A/4978 and Corr.2], we shall have no doubts concerning its lack of objectivity, its partiality its intention merely to please a majority and not to set out the facts and realities as they are. My Government extended to the Sub-Committee its full co-operation and provided it with the fullest possible information in every field; That was factual and official information; on which the Portuguese State relies in taking its decisions on administration and policy. But the Sub-Committee ignored and discarded all such data and information and chose to rely only on anonymous information secured through hearsay. No responsible Government can accept that. 32. And then we have the Special Committee of seventeen members. It has just provided us with its full report [A/5238]. My delegation has not yet studied it, but we have followed its proceedings and we all know the recommendations which it has already adopted. What has been stated in the Special Committee and the draft resolutions which it has adopted do not bear, at least in so far as we are concerned, the remotest connexion with reality. It is enough to recall the draft resolution on Mozambique. There is peace, there is normalcy, there is constant development, in every field — and still the draft resolution speaks of repression by military means and of a threat to international peace and security. It is outrageous and it is revolting, and it is also an affront to the United Nations itself. 33. Incidentally, it occurs to me to make one remark. The delegation of India voted in favour of that draft resolution and therefore subscribed to the view that there is oppression in Mozambique, and racial segregation, and what not. But still, the Indian Government raised every possible opposition when the Portuguese Government decided that the many thousands of Indian nationals residing in Mozambique had to leave that province and depart for India or elsewhere. Does the Indian Government wish thousands of its nationals to be subjected to oppression and racial segregation? If not, then it should gladly have agreed to their departure. The explanation is that the Indian Government, wants its nationals to stay on in Mozambique, as elsewhere in Africa, as the advance fifth column to carry out Indian intentions to make East Africa and other parts of Africa parts of the Indian empire. Again I am not using my imagination; the Indian Press has stated that if Indian nationals in Mozambique have to leave the Province, then the Indian Government should see to it that they are kept together in India, as a unit, so that one day they may go back to Mozambique and settle in the territory, colonize it, and exploit it. One may read this, for instance, in editorials in the Times of India. How dubious, how false, therefore, was India’s stand when, in the Special Committee of seventeen members it voted for the draft resolution on Mozambique. 34. And then we have the Special Committee of seven members. The Special Committee has already presented its report [A/5160] and we shall deal with it in detail at another stage. Now I merely wish to draw the attention of the Assembly to the methods and procedures of that Committee, and to the frame of mind and intentions of the majority of its members. Against the Charter, against the rules of procedure, against the practice of the Assembly, the Special Committee decided to hear "petitioners" from, Portuguese overseas territories. How was that done? I could, and later I shall, provide full evidence on this point, but at the moment I wish merely to read to the Assembly an article from the newspaper Sunday News of 6 May 1962, published in Dar es Salaam. It reads: "The Committee (of seven members) plans to remain in Dar es Salaam until 20 May, and anybody wishing to appear before it with written statements or to give oral evidence should contact Mr. G. M. Rutabanzibwa of the Prime Minister's Office (External Affairs and Defence)"; 35. Anybody could come forward and make statements, and it did not matter who or of what nationality. And the whole business, the whole show was organized, arranged, and directed, by the office of the highest authority of a foreign Government. The Charter authorizes the Assembly to hear petitioners who have requested to be heard, and then only in regard to Trust Territories, but here we have petitioners by invitation, petitioners by incitement, petitioners by advertisement, and this creates a very interesting precedent of far-reaching consequences Which from now on we may explore in regard to those countries, big and small, which have hundreds of thousands of exiles outside their territories. Indeed, I am sure that those "petitioners", as it were, have provided the Special Committee with what it considers as impartial and reliable evidence. 36. But I turn now to another example of the Special Committee's methods. In its report one may read the following: "In the course of the examination of the labour situation in the Territories under Portuguese administration the Committee had always in mind the report of the ILO Commission which had already studied in detail all the legislation relating to the labour conditions in Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese Guinea." [A/5160, para. 347.] And again in its report the Special Committee writes: "The information provided by the petitioners gives further substance to the findings of the ILO Commission concerning the existence of forced labour in the Territories..." [ibid. para. 367]. 37. We have seen that the petitioners may be anybody, but the point to be made from this quotation is different and far more serious. The Special Committee of seven members states that there was an ILO Commission Which had already studied in detail all the legislation in relation to labour conditions in Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese Guinea. But whit the Special Committee does not say is that, apart from studying the legislation, the Commission went to Angola and to Mozambique and made a lengthy and detailed investigation of all labour and social conditions in the territories; that the ILO Commission, whose members were Switzerland, Senegal and Uruguay, has drawn up. a long report; and that, in its report, the ILO Commission not only completely exonerated Portugal from any practices of forced labour, but also stated that it had found in both territories some of the most advanced social and labour realizations on the Continent of Africa. 38. Notwithstanding all this, the Special Committee dares to state in its report [A/5160] that the findings of the ILO Commission were to the effect that there is forced labour — precisely the opposite, of the conclusions of the ILO Commission. The Sub-Committee of five members has ignored and distorted all official and factual information supplied by my Government. Now the Special Committee of seven members distorts and denies the findings of such an honourable and prestigious organization as the ILO, which, it is convenient to recall, is one of the most important specialized agencies of the United Nations. 39. Indeed, how can a serious and self-respecting Government co-operate with committees whose methods of work are based on partiality, bias, distortion, and who try to conceal the most obvious realities? No matter how disposed we might have been to co-operate with these Committees, they, themselves have made it impossible for us to do so. And, also, if the various organs of the United Nations family start to deny and contradict each other, I wonder where we are going to be led, and how world public opinion can place any trust in them. 40. In the course of the general debate, references have been made to Angola and to Mozambique, and criticism has been addressed to Portuguese policy. I have studied the speeches made here, and I must say that I have found that no reasons whatever have been given for the criticism addressed to us. Portuguese policy is criticized for the sake of criticism; but no one shows or explains why such criticism is made, nor does anyone appear to be interested in assessing the merits of' Portuguese policy and of its ideological foundation. It seems useful, therefore, to outline a few basic points for the benefit of those who are of good faith. 41. We firmly believe that no race in the world is inherently superior or inferior to any other race and, therefore, we are strongly opposed to any kind of racial supremacy or racial segregation. We also firmly believe that all races should live together and work together harmoniously for the common welfare. Again, it is our long-standing opinion that all races and all peoples can make usefull contributions for the benefit of mankind, and that progress can be achieved only if such contributions are pooled together. Therefore, an integrated, multiracial society, drawing on the cultural and moral values of all races and peoples, is a basic feature of Portuguese policy. 42. When I speak of a multiracial society, I do not have in mind the mere coexistence of different racial or ethnic groups; I have in mind a society where all ethnic groups are closely integrated and knitted together with a deep feeling of oneness. We feel that history substantiates this view. Nations formed by more than one race have been and are great nations, and in those countries which close themselves to any contacts we see that no progress is made and that they become dormant and stagnant communities. Then, and this is another basic feature of Portuguese policy, we believe that the healthy growth of a human society is better secured if all are equal before the law and if the same opportunities for advancement in all fields are granted and are open to all, irrespective of race, colour, religion or social origin. This means the same rights and duties for all. Here we come to the most important point in Portuguese policy, and that is that the same political rights should be provided for all, the same educational opportunities, the same economic and social possibilities. These fields embrace the whole life of any given human society, and its progress should be measured in terms of the full participation of the whole population in the political, educational, economic and social activities of the territory concerned. 43. Accordingly, the furtherance and expansion of such participation are, in so far as we are concerned, the guidelines of Portuguese policy in all overseas Territories. Along these lines and for that purpose, and in accordance with our centuries-old tradition of nondiscrimination in the defence of human rights, many reforms and measures have been made mid implemented, both in the political field and in the economic field, in the educational and the administrative fields, so that further steps forward may be taken. In this connexion, it may interest the Assembly to know that in Lisbon a special session of the Overseas Council started last Monday, with the participation of all the members of the legislative councils elected by the various provinces, and of all the deputies also locally elected, and the purpose of this gathering is to debate a revision of tee Overseas Organic Law. We do not claim perfection. But the reality is that, within the Portuguese nation, and in keeping with the provisions of Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter, all are equal, with the same political and civil rights, enjoying the same political representation, having access to the same opportunities for education and social advancement, and all this both in law and in practice. We do not claim perfection — but we certainly do claim far more perfection than most of our critics. 44. Now, I do not wish to tire the Assembly, but I think it necessary to place before it a few relevant facts. Some speak of Angola and of Mozambique and of other territories though they were the virgin jungle and it becomes important, therefore, to see what the actual situation is. 45. Let us see the question of education. In January 1962, there were in Mozambique 8,664 educational establishments, including primary schools, industrial, technical and training schools and 'high schools. The student population was of the order of 940,000 students. As for Angola, there were on the same date 17,630 educational institutions with a total student population of 710,000 pupils. For these two Territories 'alone, therefore, we have a total student population of 1,650,000. To this we have to add nearly 3,000 students of Angola and Mozambique who are studying at university level. We are aware of the need for more educational facilities, and plans to expand them are ready, and we hope soon to be able to carry them out. But on this question of education we have just taken a very important step forward, and that is the establishment of universities at Luanda, capital city of Angola, and at Lourenço Marques, capital city of Mozambique. Still speaking on education, it may interest the Assembly to know the following detail: the proportion of enrolled students to the population in Angola and Mozambique is about 17 per cent, whereas in the rest of Africa the average proportion is only 10 per cent. In accordance with a 1961 UNESCO publication, in the whole continent of Africa, only Nigeria, with its large population, has more primary schools than Angola or Mozambique. I hope my distinguished colleagues from Nigeria do not mind my referring to their country in this context. But all these educational facilities are being expanded: only this year, in Angola and in Mozambique together, 138 new primary schools have been established, twenty-three new high and technical schools have also been created, and 600 new teachers have been recruited. 46. Let us see now some more figures on health and welfare services. In Angola and Mozambique there are five large general hospitals, ninety-five regional hospitals, 167 health offices,-429 health posts, 336 health posts for the control of leprosy, 200 maternity hospitals, and some other establishments for the control and treatment of specific diseases. 47. But the expansion of education and health and welfare services has gone hand in hand with the economic and industrial development. The construction of hydroelectric dams for the supply of power, the establishment of many new industries, the development of agriculture — all this has proceeded and is proceeding at a fast pace. In this connexion, T think it right to point out that both in Angola and Mozambique we find some of the best equipped harbours in Africa; we find one of the highest percentages of civil construction on that continent; and we also find that the percentage of production of electric power per inhabitant is higher than that of, most territories in Africa. Finally, the rate of economic growth in Angola, during 1961, has been one of the highest |on the whole continent. j 48. Therefore, an immense capacity for distortion and misrepresentation is required to present the facts its they sometimes are presented in this Organization, In point of fact, Angola and Mozambique are two of the most advanced Territories in Africa, in every field, and they can stand favourable comparison with the Territories of those who are our strongest critics. When hearing this, some may think that my delegation has biased views. But then I would draw the attention of the Assembly to the evidence and testimony provided by all the foreigners who have visited Angola and Mozambique. In this context, the Assembly may be, interested in knowing that both Territories, open as they are to anyone with an impartial and objective mind, have been visited, and indeed surveyed, by a total of more than 300 foreign correspondents from newspapers from all. over the world during the last year — 300 newspapermen, and among them there were representatives of the most important and respected organs of the International Press and news agencies. I only wish the Assembly would be interested in reading their reports. And I wish also to stress the fact that the ILO has conducted a survey of the Territories, as I have indicated, that the World Health Organization has finished its own-survey, and that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations will very shortly do the same. How can anyone say that those Territories are not freely open? 49. I now revert to a point which I referred to at the beginning of my statement, that is, the "crisis of confidence" in the United Nations. We do believe that there is in fact a real crisis, and we could find many reasons for it. In our view, however, the most important reason stems from the fact, that the Charter is not being respected and implemented. Some say that the charter should be a living document, always adapting itself to changing times. My delegation does not dispute this view, and it may well be that a revision of the Charter is called for. If that should prove to be the case, then we should avail ourselves of the provisions set out in the Charter for its revision and amendment. What we cannot agree with is that amendments should be made by a simple majority vote, the result being that our basic law changes from day to day in accordance with particular whims or interests. This does not make the Charter a living document: any law is a living law only to the extent to which it is respected and applied and therefore, in full force. 50. When we ignore the law, or when we amend it through unconstitutional procedures, then we are actually killing it; and I am afraid that this is precisely what is happening to the Charter. When we see that countries are allowed to resort to naked aggression to end arguments, thereby violating Articles 1, 2 and 33 of the Charter; when countries are allowed to establish in their territories military bases to launch attacks against the borders of neighbouring territories, thereby ignoring the letter, and the spirit of the very Preamble of the Charter; when Chapters XI and XII of the Charter are brushed aside and interpreted in a way which bears no connexion with their letter and spirit; when Chapter XVIII is entirely forgotten and the Charter is revised by a simple majority vote, then we are in reality killing our basic law. In this context, and referring to some procedures which have recently been adopted, I am bound to say. that my Government does not understand the deep concern shown by some in respect of the advisory opinion of the International Court of justice stating that Members should contribute to the United Nations forces in the Congo, when this Assembly, this very Assembly, did not show the least concern for the, implementation of a decision of the Court — not a mere advisory opinion, but a clear-cut judgement — which was favourable to my country in respect of Goa. 51. For all the foregoing reasons, we think that it is urgent to go back to the true principles and philosophy of the Charter. Some say that we should strive for world peace through world law. My delegation agrees entirely. But to achieve that, first and foremost we must have a law and we must respect and apply it — and We must do so without a double standard. My delegation believes that the United Nations cannot indulge in an "ivory tower" policy, taking decisions by slogans which have only served to raise clouds of confusion, a We cannot buy world peace with world chaos. It is to be feared that such a policy may not succeed, and mankind may be led into a world war by an Organization meant to "defend World peace.