111. Mr. President, may I first of all offer you the congratulations of the Senegalese delegation on your election to the office of President of our Assembly. At a time when so many complex problems confront the United Nations, we hope that your authority and ability will enable us to consider them with all the necessary wisdom and clear-sightedness.
112. I am the first representative of a developing country to speak in this debate and this is no accident. We feel that the developing world must, from the very beginning of the debate, make its voice, heard, even if that voice is not perhaps in complete agreement with those we have heard so far.
113. Less than three months ago, we solemnly celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations. But, as may well be imagined, that celebration barely concealed our distress at the wars and tension flaring up here and there throughout the world. And we meditated on our Organization, its raison d'être, its successes and its failures. We asked ourselves what progress had been achieved by mankind in the twenty years since the signing of the Charter at San Francisco. And we thought: has this noble ideal now vanished? Is humanity now irrevocably doomed to the inevitability of war? We might be somewhat discouraged if we were to draw up a balance-sheet of these twenty years of experience. Once the joy at the return of peace had passed, mankind continued its stumbling progress in the midst of innumerable difficulties. The struggle between hegemonies resumed. Europe was the first scene of the struggle between spheres of influence. Then the Asian continent blazed up in its turn. Africa itself, which had barely emerged from its wars of national independence, was the object of many covetous glances.
114. As a result, we saw the emergence of a fantastic military arsenal which swallowed up our material resources and recruited the best brains for destructive purposes. Finally, and this was only to be expected, wretched mankind paid for that insane adventure and everyone now agrees that what should have been done for mankind was not done.
115. This session, which coincides with the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations, should give us an opportunity to meditate once more on the problems which mankind must face.
116. The problem of peace seems to be as difficult as squaring the circle. The Covenant of the League of Nations was unable to solve it and the world was engulfed in the most terrible war ever known. Twenty years ago a system of collective security was worked out. But it has not taken long for that system, as we see today, to show alarming signs of failure. Last year the nineteenth session of the General Assembly was cut short. Delegations dispersed without having had an opportunity to consider the items on the agenda. They prudently postponed consideration of them to this year’s session, hoping to find by this time a magic formula which would offer a way out of the impasse. But even though the financial deadlock seems today to have been broken, it would be an illusion to think that the problem of peace has been solved as well. The difficulties experienced by the United Nations in recent months are neither financial difficulties nor legal difficulties connected with the interpretation of the Charter. To consider them as such would be to look at them from the wrong angle. It is, to be very precise, a political problem. Because that was not understood, other remedies were sought: complicated machinery and procedures were set up. First of all, the General Assembly established an Interim Committee to watch over the maintenance of peace between sessions [see resolutions 111 (II), 196 (III) and 295 (IV)]. Then, in 1950, it adopted its famous resolution entitled "Uniting for peace", which was an attempt to reassign responsibilities between the General Assembly and the Security Council [resolution 377 (V)]. Finally, when the clouds continued to gather on the horizon and the difficulties were mounting. Articles 17 and 19 of the Charter were invoked; the International Court of Justice was brought into the picture and the debate was thus turned into a legal and financial one. Yet it was easy to understand that the question, as I have just said, was essentially a political one.
117. Over the past twenty years the world situation has developed: circumstances in Europe have changed considerably; on the Asian continent, a new régime has been installed in China. Certain Asian countries, moreover, have found themselves divided on the north and the south by the 17th and 38th parallels. Decolonization has made impressive progress which was doubtless not foreseen at the time the Charter was drawn up. It is precisely because of a stubborn refusal to recognize this new situation that the difficulties have increased. Actually the crisis in the United Nations is linked to deep-seated causes connected with the development of the international situation and with the emergence, day by day, of new facts which give it a completely different aspect from that known to the authors of the Charter. The Charter was based on the theory that the situation which existed in 1945 would be perpetuated but it is obvious that, since international life is in a constant state of flux, the hypothesis is untendable. Where, then, does the remedy lie?
118. Some believe that salvation lies in a revision of the Charter. That has just been said. Of course, it is not we who represent small Powers who would oppose a revision of the Charter,, particularly if that revision took into account the fact of this century, namely, the appearance on the international scene of many African and Asian countries. It would be only just to grant these countries a more important place in the various international forums. But, once again, the guarantee of peace does not lie in a legal instrument, however perfect it might be.
119. Legal reforms alone are incapable of solving the political problems of the moment. After all, whatever the imperfections of the Charter, it must be admitted that it contains in many of its provisions, and particularly in Chapters VI and VII, all the elements for preventing or putting an end to an armed conflict, if only the parties concerned were prepared to invoke it. But the clash of interests, the conflict of hegemonies, and the de facto division of our planet into spheres of influence controlled by the great Powers, all make the system of collective security almost unworkable. A State may invoke a given provision of the Charter when it considers that it may derive some advantage therefrom but rejects it as soon as the application of the provision is prejudicial to its friends of the moment.
120. Apart from Chapters VI and VII of the Charter, the Preamble enunciates principles and moral precepts compliance with which would, in every case, guarantee an era of stability and peace: principles of tolerance, human solidarity, fundamental rights of men and nations, self-determination, sovereignty of peoples, etc.
121. The fault, of course, lies in ourselves — in our distrust, in our intolerance, in our dogmatism, in our belief in dangerous myths such as that of racial superiority and in our dreams of hegemony, but decisive progress can be achieved, we feel, especially through our efforts to create a new outlook, to restore confidence and to develop a sense of human solidarity. Unless we do this, legal formulas are all in vain. Just as the League of Nations collapsed through impotence, so too the United Nations might become impotent and discredited.
122. Let us therefore have the courage to face up to the real problems before us so that we may find the solutions that common sense demands, namely, recognition of the People's Republic of China and its admission to membership of the United Nations; application of the principle of self-determination to all divided countries which desire reunification, and as regards the Viet-Namese question, a request addressed to all outside forces confronting each other there to withdraw. The opposing sides should be asked to heed the proposals of men of goodwill who wish to help the Viet-Namese people to decide their future in liberty. Territorial disputes should be settled by peaceful means and having regard to the will of the peoples concerned. For that reason while welcoming the recent cease-fire, we deplore the conflict embroiling India and Pakistan.
123. Much has been said about the growing influence and even about the weight of the non-aligned countries in international affairs. Personally, I have always held, and so declared here, that the weight which the non-aligned countries are generally thought to possess could only be of a moral kind. In a world where man endures rather than controls the destructive forces unleashed every day, and as the threat of annihilation looms terrifyingly over our planet, wisdom urges us to rededicate ourselves to. the ennobling moral values. People are only too inclined in the world today to believe that force alone brings salvation. But of what value is force uncontrolled by human conscience? We must rekindle within ourselves the dying embers of values without which the world may well become more and more demented and inhuman. We must return to those sources which replenish the human spirit and we must harness the forces at man's disposal in the service of a noble ideal. This is a contribution which the non-aligned countries can and must make. Indeed, I would say that their primary role is to place all the moral capital which they abundantly possess in the service of this lofty cause. That is why India and Pakistan should be invited to show greater wisdom, and we can derive some satisfaction from the restraint they have shown. We would ask them to set an example of wise conduct by remaining faithful to the fundamental values and principles of the United Nations.
124. India, which is the homeland of the apostles of non-violence, a country that has become one of the champions of non-alignment, a country that has always advocated peace and made it one of the cardinal points of its international policy, must find in the principles which it has always defended and in the age-old wisdom of its people the sources of a solution worthy of India to a dispute in which India itself is involved. In any case, we earnestly beseech India and Pakistan not to fritter away the non-aligned countries' moral capital which we all share in common and which none has the right to waste to our common detriment. The way to a peaceful solution of the dispute between the two countries lies in negotiations. It is of course the duty of all men of goodwill to help bring this about but it is our duty also, I believe, to find a method of settling territorial disputes in future. My Government gave its support to a USSR proposal for the signing of an international agreement for the peaceful settlement of territorial disputes. We think that now is the time to revive this idea and to embody it in an international treaty binding on all States.
125. Senegal, for its part, will continue to make its contribution to the maintenance of peace in the following ways: firstly, by trying to set a good example. We are not engaged in a dispute with any country in the world. We maintain good relations with our neighbours, however different our political opinions are or may appear to be. We make no territorial claim. Yet we could have, like others, entertained dreams of restoring Senegal's ancient frontiers or laying claim to a certain territory that forms an enclave within our own. On the contrary, as you have seen, we warmly applauded the Gambia's independence. Secondly, Senegal wishes to make its contribution by unreservedly supporting the principle of peaceful co-existence. Thirdly, by contributing to the consolidation of peace through the policy of non-alignment, which limits the disastrous consequences of the policy of rival blocs. Finally, by advocating negotiation as a method of approach to international problems. We sincerely believe that there is no other way to peace.
126. Coming back to the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations, which I mentioned just now, I contend that, if the horizon is overcast, it is not to be blamed on the Charter or on the United Nations, nor is it a reason to feel discouraged. On the contrary, we must embark on moral rearmament to steel ourselves to the problems and difficulties. Above all, we must become the champions of a new international order born of twenty years of change and transformation in the world. We can no longer look at the world of today with the same eyes as twenty years ago. Immobility is mankind's greatest enemy.
127. I would like very briefly to refer now to two questions which are among those of major concern to the United Nations and to sum up our position on them: decolonization and economic development.
128. My delegation has often stated its views on decolonization. Therefore we shall not repeat everything that has been said already. Decolonization has made progress and that is a fact we acclaim every day. Nevertheless, centres of tension still remain, notably in Africa, due to the stubbornness of Salazar and the recklessness of Ian Smith. My delegation, with the support of almost all the Afro-Asian countries, earlier asked for Portugal's expulsion from the United Nations. Need I repeat our reasons for so doing? A country cannot remain a member of an organization and deliberately violate its principles. Portugal's attitude is not only an insult to Africa; it is an insult to the United Nations and a blatant defiance of all human conscience. Portugal has already been expelled from a number of international bodies, including those of a technical character. As decolonization is a political problem and a fundamental objective of the United Nations, we can only express our astonishment at the hesitation of certain Members to apply a penalty duly provided for in the Charter of the United Nations. Nevertheless, we hope that this session will provide an opportunity to resume the debate and bring it to a conclusion.
129. I would like particularly to draw the General Assembly's attention to certain aspects of Portugal's action in Africa. Portugal constantly provokes all the African countries neighbouring on the territories which it administers. Senegal is a neighbour of so-called Portuguese Guinea. Senegal's independence is obviously an embarrassment to Portugal which does everything to provoke its neighbour and tries to foment insecurity and instability in Senegal to prevent the latter from serving as an example. We have on several occasions informed the Security Council of the violation of our territory by the Portuguese Government. In the last two years, seventeen clear violations of our territory have been established and reported to the Security Council. Sometimes, the Portuguese, not content with infringing the integrity of our territory, have committed acts of violence on our people. Such a situation is likely to endanger international peace and security, for Senegal certainly cannot continue to let such deliberate violations of the Charter, of international law and of its own legitimate rights go unpunished. African solidarity could undoubtedly assert itself in such an eventuality and such a conflict might assume proportions far exceeding the limits of bilateral relations between Portugal and Senegal. That is why we are asking the General Assembly categorically to condemn the incursions by Portuguese military forces into Senegalese territory, to prohibit any such incursions in the future, and to recommend that the Security Council should take appropriate action to that end.
130. Portugal not only refuses to decolonize in Africa; it even encourages Ian Smith to persevere in the adventurous policy which he has chosen to pursue in Southern Rhodesia. The trade agreements signed between Portugal and Rhodesia and the proposed exchange of diplomatic representatives between the two Governments are rather significant.
131. I had occasion, when instructed to do so by the Organization of African Unity and jointly with my Algerian colleague, to bring this problem to the notice of the Security Council. Ian Smith wishes Rhodesia to re-enact what happened in South Africa. He is threatening a unilateral declaration of independence which, in that country's legal and political context, would undoubtedly place its 3 million Negroes in the bondage of a white minority. We said in the Security Council and we solemnly repeat here in the Assembly: the responsibility for such a situation, if it were to arise, would rest squarely upon the United Kingdom which is internationally responsible for Southern Rhodesia. In Southern Rhodesia, democracy is a mockery and public liberties and political rights are trampled underfoot and buried. I shall spare you a recital of the impressive list of all the discriminatory legislation that has been passed by the settler régime under a Constitution granted by the United Kingdom. It is time for Her Majesty's Government to act before it is too late.
132. What we find so disturbing, however, is the United Kingdom's failure to consider taking any preventive action. It merely says to Ian Smith: "If you proclaim independence unilaterally, not only shall we not recognize you and not only will you be banned from the Commonwealth, but the economic consequences of your action will be disastrous for Rhodesia." But is Ian Smith, who has assuredly weighed all the consequences of his action, asking to be recognized by the United Kingdom? Is he asking to be a member of the Commonwealth for which, try his own admission, he apparently does not — pardon the expression — give a damn? Will he apply for membership in the United Nations knowing beforehand that he will be exposing himself to a rebuff?
133. Ian Smith has published a White Paper in which he shows that he has weighed all the consequences of his action and in which he concludes that the results of a unilateral declaration of independence will not be as disastrous as some people suppose. In the circumstances it is the inescapable duty of the United Kingdom to consider forthwith what preventive action is called for in the foreseeable event of a break-down in the negotiations with the Salisbury Government. In our opinion, the following preventive action is required: firstly, suspension of the Constitution granted to Southern Rhodesia in 1961 and under which all discriminatory laws are passed and promulgated; secondly, the release of all persons arbitrarily held in detention; and thirdly, a constitutional conference to be attended by all parties in Rhodesia.
134. If such measures were not taken and if the Government of Rhodesia, or rather Ian Smith, decided to proclaim independence unilaterally, that would amount to outright secession, justifying the use of force — and I mean the use of force, because the United Kingdom deems reluctant to use force in spite of the French example and the fact that the Algerian pieds noirs were obliged to yield. If the United Kingdom declined to resort to force, it would bear a heavy responsibility. We have carefully read the statements made by Mr. H. Wilson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. We have heard the statements made by Mr. Bottomley, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth relations, during a recent visit he paid to Africa. Allow me to voice our legitimate apprehensions.
135. Once again, as I had occasion to say in the Security Council, the United Kingdom must realize that the problem of Southern Rhodesia is a vital concern to us. It is also a test of the prestige and sincerity of a great nation like the United Kingdom, whose efforts to decolonize need no further stressing, but whose past attitude may well stand in strange contrast to the one it is adopting in the particular case of Rhodesia. At our request, the Security Council decided to retain the question as an item on its agenda. We urge the General Assembly to give strong support to the Security Council in this matter, not only by condemning the inhuman racialist régime of Ian Smith, but also by asking the United Kingdom to consider, as soon as possible, taking suitable action to prevent, by every possible means, — I repeat, by every possible means — a unilateral declaration of independence. If the Assembly did this, it would show that, in spite of the difficulties it is encountering or may have encountered in the past, it intends to live up to its principles and strive unremittingly to accomplish a task that has been entrusted to it and which, in so far as decolonization is concerned, has been carried out with considerable success so far.
136. For these vestigial problems of decolonization must not become a fixation which causes us to forget the essential—the crucial problem of the moment. They must not become the tree that prevents us from seeing the wood.
137. Now the real problem, the only problem that warrants mobilizing all our strength is, as we can never repeat too often, that of mankind's economic and social progress. For years the United Nations has been doing commendable pioneer work and has gone to the root of the problem, assembling material and making a systematic theoretical study of the phenomenon of under-development. The net result has been to bring about an international awareness of this problem. Two years ago it entered on the operational phase, organizing a widely publicized conference on trade and development. Our Assembly will have to pronounce on the recommendations of that conference. Some of the institutions recommended by it are already in existence and have set about seeking the best machinery for a world trade organization. But in order to eradicate under-development no stone must be left unturned and our efforts must be pursued in three different directions.
138. First of all, as the representative of Brazil, pointed our a moment ago, the will and the effort for development must come primarily from the parties concerned themselves. We believe that the under-developed countries have fully grasped this fact, A general effort — perhaps uneven but certainly growing — is being made to find within our own boundaries the necessary resources for our development.
139. But who can fail to appreciate the fact that the efforts of the developing countries alone are not enough to solve the problem? We are living in a world in which economic relations pit the strong against the weak, the rich against the poor, the great against the small, sound economies against shaky economies. Consequently, if the principle of freedom in international economic relations is allowed free play, there is no doubt that this token freedom will turn into a mounting burden of servitude for the developing countries. Our efforts will be wasted within a context of free international economic relations. And here we come to the second key factor for our development: the reorganization of international trade.
140. For half a century we have been witnessing a gradual decline in the prices of raw materials and a corresponding rise in the prices of manufacture of goods. A continent like Africa, to take only one example, sells practically all the raw materials it produces and imports practically all the finished products which it consumes. We are in no position to put an immediate end to this situation for the simple reason that our home consumer market is not sufficiently large for us to escape the arbitrary laws of world prices. We are drained by international trade. If trade is to be a factor in development, it should be organized, henceforth, in accordance with the following principles.
141. First of all, naturally, the market for raw materials must be properly organized. Indeed, if any action is to be taken, it must be taken in connexion with raw materials, which make up 90 per cent of the developing countries’ exports. Next, remunerative prices must be guaranteed so as to increase the resources of the countries exporting raw materials. Lastly, the industrial development of the poor countries must be promoted by devising a system of preferences to help them to market their industrial products abroad, at least during the take-off stage of their economies. At the same time, the developing countries must be allowed to institute a system for the protection of their infant industries by preventing unfair competition locally from the .production machines of the highly developed countries.
142. These are what I feel should be the guidelines for a new trade organization, having due regard to the interests of the developing countries, and I believe that within the group of seventy-seven countries we shall emphasize these principles and do our utmost to see that they prevail. Only if these two conditions are fulfilled: first, that an effort should be made by the developing countries themselves, and, second, that there should be a change in the world trade laws — only then will it be possible to introduce the third element, which is aid, and which we feel should be subject to two conditions.
143. The first, as we have said, is that the rich countries should undertake to contribute 1 per cent of their national income towards aiding the developing countries. This has not yet been done in spite of a proposal adopted by the General Assembly [see resolution 1522 (XV)]. The second condition is the adoption of a maximum interest rate of 3 per cent for development loans.
144. The various proposals that we have just made can hardly be considered unreasonable demands. They would simply help to ensure justice and equality in international economic relations. They would also reflect a solidarity for which the need is becoming increasingly apparent.
145. If the main theme of the Algiers conferences has been economic development, we would have gone to it. But there is still time, and Senegal, for its part, would like to meet the under-developed countries — not only the Afro-Asian countries but all the under-developed countries, including those of Latin-America — at an economic Bandung. We in Senegal believe that Afro-Asian solidarity is a good thing. It is simply an aspect of universal solidarity, but it does not provide a sufficiently large platform for joint action by all the countries affected by underdevelopment. It is the campaign against under-development which should be our chief concern, and I am afraid that the Afro-Asian framework is ill suited for such a purpose.
146. In Asia, there are some developed countries. The Soviet Union has every right to attend the conference of African and Asian countries — in fact we feel that it should attend it — but the USSR is not an under-developed country. The People’s Republic of China has no claim — and I have made this quite clear — to belong to the under-developed world. A country which manufactures, or which is in a position to manufacture atomic bombs is not, to our mind, an under-developed country; the atomic industry is a luxury industry. The Algiers conference, which we wish every success, would have done well to concentrate more on the problems of the underdeveloped countries, not only by making underdevelopment the central theme of this important gathering, but also by allowing the under-developed countries — and them alone — to attend; not only the under-developed countries of Africa and Asia but those of Europe and Latin America as well. However, all hopes of such a meeting have not vanished and Senegal, for its part, is ready to attend any conference, wherever it is held, provided that it is organized on the lines I have just indicated. What we need is a resurgence of confidence among all the peoples of the under-developed world, not in order to wage a systematic campaign against the developed world — for that would be against our philosophy — but because we know that the goal of world peace must be reached by way of economic justice.
147. I should like to conclude at the point where I began. However meagre the results achieved by the United Nations during the past twenty years, and however distressing the problems which we face today, we must remain staunchly optimistic. The chances of success depend on ourselves. Everything depends on the will to take them. In spite of everything, that will is there. It is simply a matter of galvanizing it, of giving it greater strength and determination. It is already no mean achievement that, in spite of the difficulties experienced and the failures recorded in certain spheres, mankind has managed, for the first time in ages, to live for twenty years without a world war to jeopardize all the progress that has been made. Let us hope that the next twenty-year period will be less fraught with difficulties than the first. Then we shall be able to say that, with the continuing growth of international solidarity, mankind will certainly be saved.