Senegal

Senegal welcomes the election of Mr. Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser as President of the General Assembly to lead its work at this sixty-sixth session. Therefore, I address to him and his country my warm congratulations. He will have the support of the Senegalese delegation throughout his mandate. I also extend to the President’s predecessor, Mr. Joseph Deiss, our appreciation for all his efforts to revitalize and strengthen the General Assembly so that it may play its role under the Charter. In addition, I also reiterate to the Secretary- General, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, my warmest congratulations on everything he has done for the Organization. I should like to touch on the theme of the session, the role of mediation in the settlement of disputes. The Charter has a number of provisions for the prevention of conflicts and for conflict-resolution. This goal, which was set down in the Charter 66 years ago by the founding fathers, remains, despite evident progress, a long way off. This challenge concerns us, just as it engages our collective and individual responsibility to save current and future generations from the scourge of war. 5 11-50847 While the spectre of a major conflict has faded since the end of the Cold War, millions of men and women around the world continue to suffer the disastrous consequences of conflicts old and new. Peace can be threatened in different ways. It can be threatened when, on the fertile ground of political antagonisms and social, economic and religious conflicts, confrontation gains the upper hand over tolerance, respect and acceptance of our differences. Peace is also threatened when the legitimate aspirations of peoples to freedom and respect for human rights find in response only indifference and refusal of dialogue, if not systematic repression, as is the case in a number of countries. Our theme, mediation, is addressed in the Charter, but there are similar notions, such as good offices and negotiations. I would like to contribute something by defining mediation as a mechanism whereby a person, a State or an institution comes between two parties in real or potential conflict and seeks to bring their points of view closer together, with a view to bringing the parties to make concessions and reach a consensus. That can apply to internal conflicts as well as conflicts between States. I wish to refer to resolution 37/10, of 1982, approving the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, and the 1988 Declaration on the Prevention and Removal of Disputes and Situations which May Threaten International Peace and Security and on the Role of the United Nations in this Field (resolution 43/51). To these may be added the Agenda for Peace (A/47/277), drafted after the first Security Council summit meeting, held in January 1992, establishing a doctrine of so-called tension-prevention through early warning and preventive diplomacy. The fact is that by no stretch of the imagination can our Organization alone do everything. We must consider mediation efforts at other levels, such as the regional level. It is a pity that Africa has forgotten an original mechanism often used following independence: meetings between Heads of State at their border to directly address their differences. Unfortunately, this good practice is falling out of fashion, with general international mechanisms being favoured. In the two categories of mediation — within a country or between countries — we have very rich experiences in West Africa. I shall limit myself to only mentioning them, because some are fairly well known. For example, with regard to internal conflict, when I was head of an opposition party I personally intervened at the request of Heads of State, who appreciated that I had chosen a democratic internal opposition instead of armed national liberation movements. I often succeeded in bringing together points of view and even in integrating opposition into various Governments, which I did myself later by agreeing to enter the Government of the person who had been my adversary in a number of elections. I can give the example of Guinea-Bissau, a matter resolved by a trio of Heads of State, of whom I was one, which decided to travel to the country, which was in conflict with the army. Order was successfully re-established. The countries concerned were Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal. More recently there was the Ivorian crisis, which ended happily thanks to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), supported by the United Nations and France. I could add the normalization of the situation in Niger and Guinea-Conakry through the mediation of ECOWAS, which succeeded despite difficulties in establishing an elected Government. I can also cite the peaceful declaration of independence of the State of South Sudan. I commend the representative of that brother country here at the United Nations. There are of course other cases. The examples I have given were just to show that at the regional level many conflicts can be settled directly by States, sometimes with the assistance of an outside country, such as France, or with the assistance of the United Nations. To conclude that list of countries, I want to say that just a few days ago, as there is a threat of trouble on the border between Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire, the President of ECOWAS convened a small group of neighbouring countries, and we were able, with the help of the United Nations, to establish a mechanism to prevent the intervention of mercenaries in Côte d’Ivoire who were seeking to enter Liberia to destabilize the country during election time. 11-50847 6 Sadly, despite those successes, there are other potential conflicts, such as that which is harming relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and the potential conflict in Darfur. I turn to mediation used in conflicts between States. I shall take just one example: Palestine and the State of Israel. I commend all the efforts made over many years to bring the two parties closer together, which unfortunately have not yet succeeded. So this year we have an application by Palestine to the General Assembly for recognition as a Member State of the United Nations. There is no doubt about Senegal’s support for the application; it is the consequence of what has been our policy for a long time, particularly as today Senegal is Chairman of the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Senegal supports an independent Palestinian State within internationally recognized borders as well as the existence of the State of Israel, each within its own borders. It will not be easy to achieve that, but the international community will do its very best. I take this opportunity to make a clarification, because, despite my proximity to the Arab countries and to the Palestinians, a few days ago a statement was made about my playing the role of mediator in the Israel-Palestine conflict. President Netanyahu’s understanding was mistaken. I have never been a mediator in the Palestine-Israel conflict and have never sought to be a mediator. Moreover, we need to do much more than to call one country or one person to mediate in such a complicated situation. All goodwill is needed for a solution. Having been awarded the Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize, I must honour that distinction, so wherever I can intervene to find solutions I do so, on my own responsibility. I intervened personally for the release of a young soldier, Gilad Shalit, a few years ago. Unfortunately, that was not successful, but on the basis of a number of suggestions I took the initiative once again some days ago. That seems to have had a reaction, in the light of what President Netanyahu said. He said that he did not want mediation by Senegal, and that Senegal was an ally of Palestine. But he was wrong. I do not do mediation; I provide good offices; I take it on my own responsibility to help release one young man when I believe that that young man should be elsewhere other than a prison and when I think that I can convince the parties — above all, the Palestinian parties, the current Government of Palestine, Hamas — of the need to release that young man for humanitarian reasons. If I succeed, excellent; if I fail, it will not stop me from starting over again. I will do that regardless of the position of the two parties — in other words, regardless of the position of Israel and of the position of Hamas. That is consistent with my philosophy of peace and the choice that I have made to contribute to extending cooperation where I can. I believe that fear and mistrust, which persist between Israel and Palestine, could be mitigated — this is a simple suggestion that I make to our Secretary- General — by establishing a committee of three States chosen by the two parties. Those States would hold discussions to discover what guarantees are demanded by each party to commit to the path of negotiation for the existence of two States, the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, because at present, I believe, there is no dialogue, indirect or direct. I believe that my suggestion could facilitate understanding of the positions on both sides and could help mitigate fears and concerns that are major psychological barriers to discussion and to any agreement. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this will not end in anything, but it costs nothing to try. I say to the Secretary-General: “Before you reply ‘No’, I want you to consider my proposal for 40 days. If after that time you think that it cannot help solve the problem, you can say so. But I beg you to try to understand the proposal.” I am ready to go into further details, even in a document. I have established this position, which could ultimately be fine-tuned using other people’s contributions. As I come to the end of my address I want to touch on Security Council reform. The topic has kept returning in a cyclical fashion for 18 years, and we have made no progress, due to great confusion. The current Security Council system has certain advantages. A Security Council, an international order, must exist, but it must be improved. But in its current functioning the Security Council has a fundamental role, which is to ignore the African continent. Even on recent issues, such as Libya, Africa has no permanent seat with a right of veto. 7 11-50847 I will not speak of general reform of the Security Council. I know that it will not happen overnight. But I also know that since its creation there has been a need to increase the number of seats, and there needs to be a better distribution. I call for the remedying of a historic injustice to Africa. Seventy per cent of the issues on the Security Council agenda are African questions, and Africa is absent, even on the question of Libya. Libya is an African country. Therefore, it would be good to have an African country with a permanent seat on the Security Council with a right to the veto. I am not talking about a non-permanent seat; it must be permanent. We have made progress, because when a few years ago I had discussions with members of the Council the majority thought that the idea was reasonable, if it could be detached from more general demands. But each time we bring it up it is a case of one step forward, two steps back. But we should not be discouraged. I come to my last point: the environment and the agricultural crisis. These are also issues of peace, because the environment is linked to climate change affecting particularly the developing countries, and above all Africa. A few years ago a French philosopher wrote a famous work, “L’Afrique, terre qui meurt”, in which he spoke of savannization and desertification, problems that my own country suffers from. In the Sahel I find that those words are particularly well based. Above all, coastal erosion is accelerating. From Morocco to the Gulf of Guinea seawater is filtering through layers of the continental shelf deep into the continent — 480 kilometres — salinizating the water table, with the result that the population is suffering an increasing lack of drinking water. Marine erosion does not just mean that the coast is being eroded by the sea. It is destroying land in the interior, and making populations emigrate towards areas where they can find potable water. It is historically one of the main mechanisms of desertification. Sometimes whole populations are forced to go elsewhere. But we are not standing idly by. That is why we have created the Great Green Wall, extending from Dakar to Djibouti, 7,000 kilometres long and 15 kilometres wide. That is why we called on the EU to finance a study with European and African experts to find a solution to the infiltration of marine waters into the continental shelf. We have built part of the Atlantic wall in Senegal, but only two kilometres, because one kilometre costs a great deal of money — $2 million. In depth it is to go as far as the granite plateau, at which point it can go no further. We do not want to take it too far, because in environmental matters it is important before doing anything to find out what the consequences elsewhere will be. That is why we need to analyse the matter in an entirely scientific way, since the forces of the sea that are stopped have not been negated; they are diverted by the sand and liquids. The experts can clarify the situation and help us, with full knowledge of the facts, use our resources to end this degradation, which, sadly, is leading to the disappearance of a large part of our continent. The tsunami is not just the effect of huge waves on a coast. It is also destruction that happens within our continent. I wanted to mention that phenomenon to draw attention to the great dangers threatening Africa. Finally, we recently held the second International Dakar Agricultural Forum to consider the rise in agriculture prices, from which even producing countries are suffering, like us, because we are also big consumers. The participants proposed the establishment of an organization for global agricultural governance. We urge that the headquarters of such an important institution be in Africa, and not in a developed country. There is no major organization of its kind with its headquarters in Africa. The organizations that are helping us need to be with us on the ground. The role of the proposed organization would be to regulate the prices of agricultural products and ensure a minimum income for small farmers. I commend our draft resolution on the matter. The policy of the organization could be to play a role in reducing productivity differentials. Why is productivity higher in the United States and Europe than in Africa — for example, in Zimbabwe? We need to ask the question and find solutions. In Senegal, we have addressed the issue with a plan that we call the Grand Agricultural Offensive for Food and Abundance to deal with the productivity 11-50847 8 differentials between Senegal and certain Italian regions. It has allowed us to move from being, in 2007, dependent on others for food to the status of a country that has achieved food self-sufficiency. This year we may even be able to begin exporting, which is a remarkable achievement. I must say that we have been helped by chance, since fertilizer constitutes at least 30 per cent of costs, and our fertilizer can be used directly, without any preparation. Moreover, friendly countries helped us acquire important equipment on very favourable conditions over a long term. The scope and complexity of the Organization’s tasks put in perspective its successes and its setbacks. But what determines our commitment to the institution, what gives hope to the peoples that we represent here, what definitively gives them trust and faith in the Organization, is the feeling that when it deliberates, when it decides and when it acts, it observes without discrimination the principles enshrined in the Charter: universality, legality, justice and impartiality. Finally, the extent to which those values are safeguarded is the measure of the legitimacy and success of our Organization’s interventions.