92. Mr. President, I should like to begin by offering you the warm congratulations of the Senegalese delegation on your triumphant election as President of the Assembly. Apart from the honour done to Africa, we welcome your election for many other reasons. Your long experience of the United Nations, your sound qualities of intellect and character, your universally recognized ability, all provide an assurance of the success of this important session.
93. It often happens that, just before the opening of a session, some sudden event occurs to occupy the foreground of the international scene. Carried away by the passion of the moment, we allow this event to assume such dimensions that it blurs our vision, of the fundamental problems confronting the contemporary world. On such occasions, however, we should not lose our equanimity and should rise above the event, which usually is no more than an incident, an adventitious and transient phenomenon. Crises are not always the sign of a new sickness; they may denote the acute phase of a sickness of long standing for which we have been unable to find a remedy at the proper time. So long as certain fundamental problems have not been resolved, crises will inevitably erupt from time to time. Instead of becoming excessively excited, we would do better to attack the evil at its root by tackling candidly, and as lucidly as possible, the fundamental problems which cause the shocks we experience.
94. Until we have found a solid foundation for peace, until we have built a new international order which answers both the political and the economic needs of our age, we must not be surprised that the world moves from crisis to crisis and that conflict succeeds conflict.
95. What have we done to bring lasting peace to the world? I will not now repeat the words of the Secretary- General's excellent report on disarmament, but I cannot but note that it concludes with an admission of defeat. As the Secretary-General himself observes, at the time when he signed the report, the Eighteen-Nation Committee had not yet presented to him any resolution which could be submitted to the Assembly. Yet it is no exaggeration to say that the General Assembly met last year in an atmosphere of general euphoria. From this rostrum, almost every delegation hailed the Moscow Treaty banning nuclear weapons as a historic event. The mass accession to this Treaty of the smaller Powers was equivalent to a referendum — a referendum overwhelmingly in favour of peace. The way in which our peoples flocked to accede to the Moscow Treaty was not, as will be appreciated, the expression of a boundless satisfaction. Everyone knew that the Moscow Treaty was not perfect; but in acceding to it we were asking for a continuation of the task which had been begun, in order that the ultimate goal of general and complete disarmament might be attained.
96. I have said that the Moscow Treaty was not perfect. It is not perfect in that it sanctions the sovereign power of the few by conferring on them the exclusive privilege of possessing nuclear weapons. Yet we, like many others, signed the Moscow Treaty in order to give broad popular support to the ideal it embodies and to encourage the realization of that ideal. This broad popular support for the Moscow Treaty should have served as a spur to more rapid progress on the work begun. Because it failed to do so, we are now confronted with a serious threat. Other countries have learned the secret of atomic weapons. The arms race might be resumed, because some countries might wish to maintain their lead and others to overtake them.
97. A world disarmament conference has been suggested. It is true that peace is everyone's business; But my delegation, recognizing world realities, does not consider it necessary or useful to hold a world conference. Peace is not a matter for oratory. The important point is that those who for the time being are directly concerned because they possess atomic weapons should be able to discuss this problem among themselves. We are concerned only with the result; the reaching of a genuine agreement on the principle of, and practical arrangements for, general and complete disarmament. Our role is to speak for the world conscience, to reflect international public opinion, to excercise salutary pressure on those who possess atomic weapons.
98. Before there can be disarmament, however, certain anomalies must be corrected. No one arms for the pleasure of arming; but the lack of a perfect order gives rise to certain anomalies. There are injustices, iniquities, dreams of territorial or ideological expansion or both, economic domination of the weak by the strong. All this is not conducive to the inauguration of an era of peace.
99. There are a number of anomalies, both political and economic, in the existing international order. Politically, there is conflict between blocs, and sometimes conflict within blocs. Conflict within blocs may be a good sign but conflict between blocs is not. It has unjust and dreadful consequences.
100. It is abnormal, for instance, that the People's Republic of China is not a Member of the United Nations. Leaving aside any question of ideology, 700 million human beings cannot be deprived of their right to membership in the international community and to participation in the decisions taken by it. My delegation will actively support any proposal which would enable China to recover its lawful rights.
101. Another anomaly of the international order is the existence of divided countries. In our view, the principle of self-determination must be allowed to operate. Let the peoples of those countries decide either to unite in a single State, or to separate once for all. In either case, we should simply note what is done and give it legal sanction.
102. A third anomaly is the structure of the United Nations, which is not adapted to the international realities of today. We have for long been demanding changes in this structure. Everyone agrees on the principles, but no one agrees to its realization in practice unless it is done in the way he wishes.
103. A final anomaly of the existing international order is colonialism. We are pleased, of course, at the progress of decolonization. This year, once again, new Members have been or will be admitted to the United Nations. We offer our sincere congratulations to the delegations of Malawi, Zambia and Malta, whose countries have now achieved full national sovereignty. Yet, although decolonization has made progress, one cannot fail to note the shocks which accompany it and, at times, the spectacular setbacks it suffers.
104. In both Asia and Africa, the colonizers have withdrawn, only to leave the stage free for new masters, although often not acknowledged as such. In some cases, the colonizers themselves have attempted by indirect means to embroil matters anew. There has been talk, for some years past, of neo-colonialism. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that the word stands for a painful reality.
105. However, we wish to be fair and to make allowances. Although the colonialists bear a heavy responsibility, the formerly colonized peoples are also not entirely blameless. Very often, it is we ourselves who introduce the cold war into our countries. Because of internal rivalries between individuals and political factions* we invite outsiders to interfere in our affairs. Again, being in dispute with a neighbour, we appeal to a third country, in many cases a great Power, to intervene in the dispute, and this impels our adversary to do likewise. We establish the Organization of African Unity, but we allow factions to arise within it, so that problems can scarcely be solved objectively, but only on the basis of alliances, sympathies, rivalry and sometimes enmity. Attempts have often been made to have that Organization play a role which does not belong to it, making it a supranational body, as though States, by acceding to its Charter, had surrendered their own sovereignty. Let us not go too quickly. African unity is, at present, a trend, an aspiration; it is not yet an institutional reality. All these contradictions paralyse us and give others the impression that we have no principles and no rules. The Congo is a typical example of this.
106. Since 1960, that unhappy country has been floundering in difficulties without number. It is the worst example of decolonization that can be found. Of course, the original fault lay with the Belgian colonizers, who were less concerned with educating men than with exploiting wealth. There was also unquestionably pressure from financial groups, which had no intention of quitting the Congo and which worked for the dismemberment of the country. That was the cause of the secession of Katanga. But have we Africans really facilitated a solution of the problem by coherent and concerted action? I do not think so.
107. My delegation feels perfectly free to discuss the Congolese problem, because we condemned the secession of Katanga from the outset, we sent troops to help to undo it, and we defended the territorial integrity of the Congo here at that time. Last year, although we appreciated the financial reasons which were given for withdrawing the United Nations troops from the Congo we faced that development with some apprehension.
108. The Secretary-General's report on the work of the Organization, confirms how justified that apprehension was. The report says: "The United Nations military advisers agreed that the Congolese army and police were still lacking the ability to assume full responsibility for law and order in the country and that therefore a case could be made for a need of military assistance from outside beyond 1963." [A/5801, p. 1.]
109. In other words, if the United Nations withdrew, the Congolese National Army would be unable to maintain order and public security, all the more so, the report went on to say because: "... there would appear to be little basis for optimism about the prospects for significant progress in the training and modernization of ANC by June 1964" [ibid., pp. 1 and 2],
110. That is what the Secretary-General said in his report when the United Nations troops were about to be withdrawn. Afterwards, Mr. Adoula resigned. Mr. Tshombé replaced him. It is not for us to evaluate the causes or the manner of that change in the internal politics of the Congo. Countries change governments every day, sometimes according to constitutional procedure and sometimes, unfortunately, in the wake of revolutions. Those are internal questions which are not within our competence.
111. The surprising thing is that attempts have been made in Africa, even some persistent attempts, to challenge the legality of the present Congolese Government. That is a dangerous precedent and we Senegalese cannot accept it. Whether Mr. Tshombé has made mistakes or has acted in the interest of the Congo is for the Congolese people alone to decide. We, for our part, abstain from any interference in the Congo’s internal affairs.
112. Senegal desires to remain faithful to certain principles, come what may. Any policy not abased on respect for principles is doomed to failure. But in this Congo affair, we must admit, we do not always see what principles are being observed, but sometimes we can guess what interests are being pursued. The recent American-Belgian intervention in the Congo aroused much excitement in Africa, and often, we must say, false indignation. Only recently, African Governments appealed for the intervention of European Powers to put down uprisings, and nothing was said. We must be consistent with ourselves. There cannot, in any case, be a double standard. Instead of charging into the Security Council chamber to debate a question on which we are far from unanimous, I think we Africans should rather begin by examining our consciences. Have we done all we could to help the Congolese people? We have often carried our internal disputes into the Congo; often, consciously or unconsciously, we have helped to sow anarchy there. We approve or condemn interventions depending on whether they come from the right or the left, from Washington or Moscow.
113. We wish to speak as a truly non-aligned country; non-aligned with regard to the blocs, of course, but non-aligned within Africa as well. What binds African people together is their solidarity, and sometimes the identity of their situations. But solidarity does not mean subjection or submission. It presupposes the equality of all African States and mutual respect for their sovereignty. The Congolese problem is serious, but let us Africans begin by ourselves refraining from any interference in the internal affairs of the Congo if we want to have the right to judge and criticize other interventions.
114. We do not feel it would be useful to say anything further and we hope we have been understood. But my delegation could, if necessary, revert to this question.
115. In any case, it is dangerous to create some precedents in Africa, all the more dangerous because decolonization is as yet incomplete. Foreign interventions, even when we invite them, often offer an opportunity for reopening the question of our independence and sovereignty. But for such interventions to cease, we must make an effort to solve our internal problems ourselves. We in Senegal can say this all the more freely because, since we have achieved independence, two very serious crises have shaken our country, to such a point as to bring about changes of government. We did not call on any foreign country to solve our difficulties. We settled them ourselves. Of course, no one can deny that a country enjoying its sovereign rights is entitled to appeal to a foreign Power to help it in solving its difficulties. But that country does so at its own risk. We cannot condemn it for doing this; the most we can do is regret it. That is our attitude as regards the Congo. But the situation in the Congo is truly so exceptional that we must examine it with sympathy and even with humility, in view of our own failures as Africans in this affair.
116. The Congolese problem deserves to be deeply pondered. Tomorrow, we may face a similar situation in the Portuguese colonies, especially if Portugal does not at once take the necessary steps to train technical, administrative, and political leaders capable of taking over.
117. We have long been calling on the United Nations to shoulder its responsibilities. Instead of quarrelling about the impossible and undesirable application of Article 19, we would do better to stress the direct responsibility of Portugal and South Africa, and of all those who are now tempted by neo-colonialism, so as to let them know that the establishment of a new international order is irreversible and that they must bid farewell to the dead past. We say frankly that it would be undesirable and inadvisable to apply Article 19 of the Charter. To deprive the Soviet Union of its right of vote would create an imbalance fatal to the United Nations and, in the end, fatal to peace. The United Nations cannot live with the United States alone or the Soviet Union alone. These two great Powers have been condemned to coexist and to cooperate in the interest of peace. Our duty as non-aligned countries is to advise, conciliate, and help to find an acceptable compromise. We feel, moreover, that once a compromise has been found to the present situation, we must not rest on our laurels. We must attack the basic problem, that of finding ways in which the United Nations may undertake peace-keeping operations with the commitment of all its Members.
118. Once again, I have tried to speak as the representative of a non-aligned country, consistent with itself. My delegation can do so all the more easily in that our country is not engaged in any conflict, and is practicing a policy of peace and negotiation, the only policy which may make it possible to bring about, without conflict, the new world which we so fervently desire.
119. But if anomalies exist in international political relations, they exist equally, and indeed to a greater degree, in economic relations. The establishment of a new international order cannot but effect the economic sphere. Fortunately, everyone has become aware of this, and it is recognized unanimously that the greatest problem of our time is the problem of reviewing economic relations, especially between rich countries and poor countries.
120. Internal revolutions are always caused by injustices, abuses and social inequities. But this time, such upheavals threaten to affect the international order itself. We are menaced by a vast confrontation on a global scale, in which the rich would oppose the poor, to their mutual peril.
121. What is our situation as non-aligned peoples? So as not to give rise to suspicion, I shall cite from sources not our own. In a recent document on the problems of co-operation published by the French Government this is textually what we find: "During the last fifty years, the eighteen principal products representing 90 per cent of tropical products have experienced average annual fluctuations of 14 per cent in price, 19 per cent in volume and 23 per cent in export revenue ... For exporting countries the deterioration in the terms of trade has led to losses of revenue equivalent to part of, and even, for some countries, more than, all the aid they receive. The fall in price of the primary commodities exported by the poor countries is aggravated by the rise in price of the industrial products they import.”
122. We knew all this, but the new and certainly encouraging fact is that a developed country should officially recognize it. The price index published by FAO is also significant. In ten years, the index for primary commodities dropped from 113 to 82, while the index for manufactured products coming from the industrialized countries rose from 83 to 110 and even, in the case of some products, to 134.
123. Has decolonization improved this situation? Was the previous economic order upset when we obtained our independence? We do not think so; or rather, if it was upset, it was to make our situation worse. Yet the purpose of decolonization was to improve, not worsen, the living conditions of the peoples concerned. In the days of the colonial regime, the effects of fluctuations in the commodities market were offset by compensatory mechanisms, in both the sterling and the dollar zones; no doubt those mechanisms were imperfect, but at least they existed. Today, they are gradually being dismantled, and as yet no systems have been established to replace them. While we await the establishment of these new systems, we are being asked to align our prices with world prices, bring about diversification in our production here and now, and find markets for our young industry within the framework of free competition. That is what we are being asked to do.
124. The situation is serious, and we must have the courage to say that the responsibility rests first of all, and principally, on those who embarked on the colonialist venture. For centuries, they systematically maintained among us a one-crop trading economy to satisfy their own needs for raw materials. It is true that in existing regional organizations, such as the European Common Market, timid attempts are being made to correct that injustice. But as I said last year, to the displeasure of our friends, aid in diversification and production is not aid, strictly speaking; it is a reparation, imperfect in character and insufficient in volume, for the harm which was done us.
125. An elementary duty of justice and humanity demands that the former colonizers should not withdraw and leave us to foot the bill. But the responsibility of the former colonial Powers is based not only on ethical and humanitarian considerations; it is an objective responsibility, deriving from a situation of their own making.
126. I quoted from a recent document describing the effects of decolonization as seen by a Western country which has made honourable efforts to decolonize and for that reason deserves our esteem. But in that document, the opinion is expressed that one of the consequences of decolonization must be that a newly-independent country should no longer be able to demand the help of another people in invoking the natural and permanent right it enjoyed under the extension of national solidarity to the colonial territories. For a rich people, the report says "to extend aid to a poor people, it must be prompted in so doing either by a selfish expectation of the advantages it stands to gain as regards its own prosperity, prestige, defence or power, or by an ethical sense of human solidarity".
127. That is precisely our dispute with our former colonizers, although they have remained our friends, at times even good friends. Since our situation and the present structure of our economy are the results of their deliberate policy, the colonizers cannot be bound, in their relations with us, only by a duty of human solidarity. They are bound by a definite specific responsibility which has nothing to do with the simple duty of human solidarity. But that is only one side of the problem, and, in any case, we cannot force the former colonizers to do something they do not wish to do.
128. Moreover, it is only fair to say that colonialism is not the sole cause of economic dislocations and inequalities. Many countries which have never had any colonies are in the category of developed countries; while some countries which were never colonized are still under-developed; so that some of the blame must be laid on international economic relations as a whole. If we wish to bridge the gap between rich and poor countries, we must build a new system.
129. We are pleased that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development approached this problem in a spirit appropriate to our time. Although no immediate results were achieved, that Conference gave us reason to hope. At least, it enabled us to sound the alarm, and we hope that the patient efforts of the promoters of that important Conference will be followed up.
130. Diversification of our production, stabilization of commodity prices, the opening of markets in developed countries to industries in our countries, a reciprocal concern for our interests, assistance and co-operation progressively organized on a multilateral basis and involving the collective commitment of the developed countries as well as the efforts of the countries receiving aid — such, I believe, are the means whereby we may gradually establish a new order, which will guarantee peace and equality among peoples through economic justice.
131. I have now finished. The whole problem, whether examined from a political or an economic point of view, is one and the same; it is the problem of reorganizing our world on the basis of a new morality. So long as we have not solved the great problems of our time by applying new principles, we need not be surprised if the Chance events we call "crises" occur on the eve of each session.
132. If the bomb was exploded in China, it is because we were unable to find a successful solution to the disarmament problem, that is, the problem of peace. If a crisis developed in the Congo, it is because we were unable to draw up a charter for decolonization acceptable to the international community as a whole and providing in advance for methods and processes. If blood is flowing in Viet-Nam, it is because not everyone accepts the principles of peaceful coexistence, and because the principle of self-determination of peoples has not been rigorously applied. If there is a financial crisis in the United Nations, it is because we have not clearly defined the principles and established the methods to be applied to peace-keeping operations; instead of becoming excited over such crises, we would do better to try to find effective means of preventing them.
133. Since the year 1965 is to be International Cooperation Year, let us try to co-operate for a better future for mankind under a new international order.