209. I am very pleased that I should be addressing the General Assembly under the presidency of the representative of Chile, a country with which my own country has close and warm relations of friendship.
210. I am sure that I speak for all of us when I express my regret that the absence of President Fanfani is because of his serious accident. I would ask you, Mr. President, to be kind enough to convey to the President of the General Assembly the; heartfelt expression of sympathy of my delegation and my very best wishes for his complete and speedy recovery.
211. As a basis for this general debate we have, as a fundamental document, the Introduction to the Annual Report [A/600l/Add.1] which the Secretary-General has drawn up for our benefit and which places before the Assembly a comprehensive picture of the work of the Organization during the past year. We should not underestimate the importance of such a document. As I studied it, there came to my mind past reports Of the Secretary-General, and I particularly remember the introduction to the annual report of 1962. Then the Secretary-General of our Organization wrote that the United Nations had failed to promote social progress and better standards of living in larger freedom, and that the rate of development had fallen far short of meeting the needs and demands of peoples. The Secretary-General pointed out, in 1962 also, that the United Nations had failed to help in finding a solution to the very crucial problem of disarmament. As a result of all this, the Secretary-General spoke in 1962 of "a crisis of confidence" in the United Nations.
212. What do we find in the Annual Report for 1965 now before us? The Secretary-General, in his Introduction, refers to past facts which have damaged "the effectiveness and dignity of the United Nations" [ibid. section I]. He stresses "the deterioration in the international situation generally " which has had "an adverse impact in the field of disarmament," as a result of which "no substantial progress has been achieved" and "the hi^h hopes engendered by the agreements reached in 19S3 have been greatly diminished" [Ibid., section H].
213. Then the Secretary-General turns to economic problems, and writes: "a disturbing shadow has been cast, in the form of a worsening of the relative economic position of the developing countries", and he again underlines that "despite the progress made in the organizational and administrative field, however, the year has not fulfilled the hopes generated in developing countries by the agreements reached in Geneva" [Ibid., section IV]. And so it seems to me that in such matters of paramount and decisive importance as disarmament and economic development of the under-developed countries, no progress or very little progress has been achieved by the various Powers, and we find the Secretary-General, as is his duty, expressing precisely the same preoccupations in 1962 and in 1965. There should be no wonder that there is an increasing awareness of the deep, general and serious crisis of the United Nations and of the diminishing confidence of the whole frustrated world.
214. For this, we could find many reasons. In the view of my delegation, however, the most important reasons stems from the fact that the Charter is not being respected and implemented. When we consistently ignore the law for a long time, or when we amend it through unconstitutional procedures, then we are actually killing it, and I fear that this is precisely what is being done to the Charter, as a result of decisions taken against the Charter by simple majority vote in order to meet the desires of occasional majorities.
215. But there are other reasons for the crisis and frustration of the United Nations. We should stress, in the first place, that the countries which, within the Assembly, formulate or initiate policies and support decisions in regard to some concrete problems are not those which have to pay the political price for the implementation of such policies and decisions, and also are not those which have the means to carry them out. Therefore there is a tremendous and widening gap between the fine points scored in the Assembly and the hard realities of life throughout the world. And we should also emphasize another important factor, and that is that the political forces which seem to and do rule the Assembly and command its decisions are not the real forces it the world. The fact that this has been lost sight of has resulted in an accumulation of resolutions which the political forces of the Assembly — that is the majority — have voted and approved but which have been ignored and filed away by the real world forces. When this happens for a long time, as it has happened, it only brings about a loss of effectiveness and of respect.
216. But I referred to violations of the Charter and this brings me back to the Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General, particularly to that passage where he himself points out the need to respect legality not only in the United Nations but in the specialized and technical agencies and in all international organizations as well. The Secretary-General writes:
"I must add that it is the feeling of the Executive Heads of all the organizations that a pre-condition for the continued success of economic social and cultural co-operation on an international plane is the preservation to the greatest possible extent of the essentially technical character of such action. I have previously had occasion to observe that it would be a matter for regret on the part of the entire international community if important meetings dealing with these questions, and depending for their success on the vital element of international co-operation, were to fail to yield, solid results because of the introduction of highly contentious political issues into the discussions and deliberations. The admitted difficulty of drawing a clear line between what is political and what is not must not be allowed to distract the Member States from their specific duty to respect the Charter, the conventions and the constitutional procedures of the agency concerned and from their general obligation to safeguard, in the common interest, the future of international order itself" [Ibid., section I].
217. These weighty words of the Secretary-General are very important words indeed. They outline in a forceful, and vivid way the whole picture of international co-operation and its very structure. And the Secretary-General tells us in substance that either there is the rule of law respected by all — or else international co-operation ceases to be at all possible. But in recent years, and in an increasingly louder fashion, the rule of law within international organizations and specialized agencies has been treated with utter contempt. Political issues, purely political issues have replaced and prevented constructive debate in the solution of scientific, economic or technical problems. I am not suggesting that political issues should not be discussed; but they have their proper forum, which is this Assembly or a regional political organization. But, for some time now, one has not been able to discuss international co-operation on education or labour conditions or telecommunications or fisheries or meteorological problems or airways or, in fact, anything, without first debating purely political issues for endless days.
218. My country has been a very special target, and a victim of such disruptive behaviour. In fact, there has been no meeting of any specialized agency without political debate of and political attacks on certain Portuguese policies. And many times it takes on a ridiculous character. Recently in UNESCO, an African delegation, although acknowledging that Portugal is a full member of that agency, asked that the Portuguese delegation should be denied the office space which is allocated to every delegation; and in the International Agency for Civil Aviation another delegation requested, and was supported by a majority vote, that Portuguese airlines should be considered as non-existing and that Portuguese planes should be considered as non-flying. It may seem very easy, innocuous and harmless to indulge in attacks against Portugal in the specialized agencies, to ask for its condemnation and to ask for its expulsion — in utter disregard of the law and of the basic charters of the various international organizations. It may indeed seem of no consequence at all. But I remind all those who think along those lines that if you violate the law once, you, are bound to violate it at other times; that if you accept the violation of the law when it affects one country, then there is nothing to prevent future violations in respect of other countries; and that if you reject a country because you do not agree with certain of its policies, then tomorrow you may be rejecting other countries. That would be the end of international co-operation and of the diversity which characterizes the international community. There would be no security in international life.
219. Today Portugal is the one which is under attack; tomorrow capitalist countries may be asking for the expulsion of socialist countries; republics may not like to co-operate with monarchic States; and what seems now to be a very harmless attitude, because it is directed merely against Portugal, may very well backfire and turn against the very countries which now feel very happy to indulge in such a procedure. I therefore fully subscribe to the advice of the Secretary-General and appeal to all concerned to cease violating international laws and conventions, and to bring some constructive contributions to the community of nations and to this Organization.
220. However, this is just one aspect of one serious problem: the breakdown of international law and order. As a matter of fact, during the past few years a new legality has been or is in the process of being created; a new conception of law has been brought to international affairs; and a new legal structure has been ruling the life, or at least some aspects of the life, of the community of nations. The interesting point is that such a new notion of international lawfulness works is one direction only, for one purpose only and for the benefit of some only. We have two sets of countries in the international community: some are allowed anything they please, with any justification which may occur to them; other countries are not allowed anything, and they cannot even do what the first set can. And it does not seem valid to argue in favour of the legitimacy of actions as a result of the legitimacy of the purposes because the purposes are themselves an outcome of lawlessness. Besides, such an attitude would amount to saying that what is backed or supported by might becomes right. In other words, that would be the destruction of the rule of law.
221. But the breakdown of international law and order and the problems of international immorality and the double standard have found a glaring manifestation in recent weeks. I have in mind the conflict between Pakistan and India, to which the Secretary-General refers in his Annual Report, and which was debated in the Security Council in the past five weeks. As the Secretary-General points out, the conflict "broke out between India and Pakistan over the long-standing problem of Kashmir" [Ibid., section XII], The conflict is long-standing indeed, and it is also a part of the drive of the Indian Government to secure political unity in the sub-continent of India. As early as 18 October 1962, speaking before this Assembly, I stated: "The Indian aggression against Kashmir, a territory which rightfully belongs to Pakistan, is a further step of the drive I am referring to" [1155th meeting, para. 26]. I said this three years ago, and it seems that I was being only too accurate, because my country has direct experience of Indian aggression. The grab of Goa, against the will of its population and carried out through military aggression, was a first step. Other steps will follow if Indian imperialism is not checked in time. Indian aggression against Pakistan is just another example which should be taken by this Organization as a further lesson. But important as these aspects may be, there are other points which were brought out by Indian aggression against Pakistan which have implications of a general nature and which do have a bearing on other situations.
222. I shall mention only a few examples. Apart from invading Pakistan territory, which is not under dispute, the Indian Government also invaded that part of Kashmir which is administered by its legal owner. And what was the justification that the Indian Government put forward to excuse its action? The Prime Minister of India said that the bases where "infiltrators " were coming from had ’ to be attacked and destroyed. So the Prime Minister of India is on record as stating chat it is legitimate to attack and destroy bases in foreign territories if they are used by people who seek to infiltrate themselves into neighbouring territories. My delegation takes very good note of this, and hopes that the Prime Minister of India is not claiming a special prerogative but that he is setting forth a doctrine of which all Governments can avail themselves under similar circumstances.
223. Then the Prime Minister of India, in referring to the peace-keeping activities of the United Nations, has categorically stated that his Government would never allow any international force to be sent to Kashmir to supervise and ensure the cease-fire, because India would never tolerate foreign soldiers on Indian soil. Now, has the Prime Minister of India already forgotten that not very long ago India was an enthusiastic supporter of the sending of international armies to foreign countries? Has the Prime Minister of India already forgotten that his own country sent a very large contingent to the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Congolese soil is certainly foreign soil in so far as India is concerned. But that does not matter; for the New Delhi Government, Indian soil seems to be superior and more important than that of others. Be it as it may, we take good note that the Indian Government is now against the stationing of foreign soldiers on other people's soil.
224. But as a result of this question of Kashmir, the Indian Prime Minister has made other very interesting points. Dealing with the suggestion that there should be a plebiscite in Kashmir, as decided by the United Nations fifteen years ago, the Indian Prime Minister said that such a suggestion is unacceptable. He seems to have forgotten that India at the appropriate time accepted the idea; but now he states that it is a dangerous idea to hold plebiscites at the request of outsiders, and that in any case Kashmir was part of India because it was so provided in the Indian Constitution.
225. We have here two points of the utmost importance: first, foreign countries or outside organizations cannot request that a plebiscite be held in a territory which is part of another nation; and second, integration by a constitutional provision or clause is considered to be legitimate and final, and should be so accepted by all. My delegation again takes very good note of this and hopes that the Indian Government will agree that its doctrine is valid for all and that other Governments are entitled to apply it.
226. But the Prime Minister of India also dealt with the question of the self-determination of the people of Kashmir. And then the Prime Minister stated that self-determination is brought about by participation of the people in general elections, in accordance with internal law, and that when people participate in general elections such people have achieved self- determination. In view of the position taken in the past by India in respect of self-determination, this new political posture of the Indian Government is bound to have wide and far-reaching repercussions. Let us see whether the Indian Government from now on will dare ask for the implementation of other and different criteria when other Governments are involved.
227. I mentioned Goa above, and the Foreign Minister of Pakistan also referred to Goa, as a glaring example of naked Indian aggression. The world wishes to conceal and tries to forget a dark chapter of recent history, but the people of Goa are everyday reminded of that chapter, because for them it is an ordeal, and in their painful plight they appeal to the world to save them. They are human beings, but this seems to be of no consequence and of no importance to the great councils of the world such as this Assembly. And what is the situation today inside Goa? Unemployment is rampant; there is a general shortage of goods; corruption is deep in administration; poverty and misery are widespread; and movements are being launched in India to destroy the individuality of Goa. On 26 August 1954, speaking before Parliament, the then Prime Minister of India said in respect 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.
228. India tries to present itself as the liberator of Goa, assuming that role before the world. But only a few weeks ago, when called to account before the. Supreme Court, the Indian Government, as reported in the Times of India, opposed, through its Attorney- General, that since Goa had been acquired by conquest, the new sovereign was not bound to honour the commitments of the former sovereign. Therefore, the action of the Indian Government could not be considered as liberation; Goa was now Indian by right of conquest — "by right of conquest", in the twentieth century.
229. The shock and dismay of the Goan population are deeper every day before the perspective of their utter destruction. I leave it to the General Assembly to judge whether Goa has been liberated or has been placed under foreign tyranny. All those who have looked into this problem have no doubts on the feelings of the people of Goa, and although they do not dare yet to speak up, they do know that the Goans have not been liberated but enslaved. If this Assembly is truly concerned with human rights, individual freedom and the welfare of peoples, then a serious investigation should be made of the conditions in that territory so as to expose before the world a crying situation.
230. In the course of this debate and in the Secretary-General's report references were made to the various aspects of what is usually called the peace-keeping functions of this Organization. It seems that there are many delegations which appear to be very keen on this subject and support almost any kind of proposal empower inf the United Nations to conduct such activities. Of course, my delegation, along with all or most other delegations, believes peace is essential and should be preserved if mankind is to survive and make progress. It is a deep-felt need of men everywhere. But in considering the peace-keeping activities or possibilities or powers which some of us would like to entrust to the Organization, we must be very careful, and we should consider the various implications of any decisions which this Assembly may take on the matter.
231. First of all, and as to financing such peacekeeping activities, my delegation is very happy to note that Article 19 of the Charter was not called into operation because such matters are clearly outside its scope, and Article 19 certainly has no bearing on the problem. And then there are other and very important considerations. Some seem to believe that a peace-keeping force should be established and act as a kind of fire-brigade to put down conflicts as and where they may arise. Now, we all know that there are many types of conflicts or of wars. There are the classical or conventional wars; there are the so-called liberation wars; and there is a type of warfare which works through subversion, infiltration, and attacks across borders or, sometimes inside countries.
232. Is the peace-keeping force to be used in all the above circumstances? If not, in respect of what type of warfare are we going to use the peace-keeping force? And if there is to be some discrimination and choice, who decides what? And then one should also be very careful so as to avoid putting the aggressor and the victim in the same category and under the same "treatment". This has been a tendency that is increasing in recent years. It usually goes under the name of "political solution". That means that someone is able to start aggression or to try to solve a problem through military means; then there is a reaction from someone else in self-defence; and there we at once have a general outcry for a political solution which means peace under terms dictated by the opponents.
233. But there is a still more serious considerations connected with or arising from such peace-keeping activities. No force established on a more or less permanent basis or hastily gathered at random can be used against the great Powers, even if they start an aggression themselves, because the great Powers have the military means to resist such a force, and if such a force should be backed by the force of another great Power, that would simply mean general war. On the other hand, such force, if applied against a small Power or a group of small Powers, could operate only with the agreement or the consent of a great Power or of a group of great Powers. Presumably, the great Powers would not give their agreement or consent unless the peace-keeping forces are used in accordance with or in furtherance of their own policies and national aspirations. That means that small Powers become mere pawns in the game of the great ones. But when we come to such a situation, then the peace-keeping force becomes useless and unnecessary.
234. We have a very recent example of this. The war between India and Pakistan was stopped, at least for the time being, and a cease-fire was imposed without any intervention of any international peace-keeping force. Why? I leave it to the Assembly to find the right answer; but agreement to that effect among some great Powers was certainly not an indifferent factor. And I think we should be more modest and above all more realistic before we herald the ceasefire on Kashmir as a triumph for the Organization and a victory for the small Powers, because both have had nothing to do with such a success.
235. Finally, one has to be very careful as to the areas in which the peace-keeping forces may intervene. Certainly not in national territories; certainly not to replace national forces; certainly not to carry out any duties or assume any functions which belong only to the local sovereign State; and when they are used along international borders, then a prior condition should be the consent of the neighbouring countries involved. Nothing should prevent or in any way limit the right of self-defence in respect of national borders against any aggression, be it a classical military operation, or be it a subversive infiltration, starting from foreign bases in contiguous territories and disguised under the name of "wars of liberation". We have ourselves been the victims of such infiltrations which find support in foreign soil and in foreign bases, where they are organized and receive all sorts of help. We shall defend ourselves, and my Government is happy to see that the doctrine of self-defence in such circumstances, including the right to destroy and eliminate those foreign bases located in foreign territories, is gaining widespread acceptance among the community of nations. Certainly this is not the privilege of some; it is a doctrim valid for all.
236. I am ending my remarks. In the course of this debate my country has been subjected to accusations and criticism in connexion with our national policy. The accusations are unfounded; the criticism is baseless; and what is presented as facts has been either imagined or distorted. But my delegation does not wish to take more of the time of the Assembly, and I shall therefore refrain from replying to those accusations. In any case they do not deserve our attention and should be treated with contempt.
237. My delegation believes that we should dedicate ourselves to higher preoccupations and should try to solve the real problems of mankind. Disarmament with proper safeguards and under-development are among them. But we cannot make substantial progress if we go on ignoring the law. We all agree that we should strive for world peace. We all agree for world peace. We all agree that we should strive for the welfare of peoples and for better international co-operation. In so far as we are concerned, I can state that my country is ready to do its utmost for such purpose. We are ready to co-operate with all countries, but more especially, as it is only natural, with those with which we have more affinity and common traditions and with those with which we have common borders in Africa. We stretch out our hand and again we offer our full co-operation to them. If we cannot agree, at least for the time being, on some political problems, nothing should prevent us from a close co-operation in every other field, such as transportation, communications, economic matters and trade, technical assistance, common development and exploitation of natural resources for the common good. We hope that our neighbours in Africa will increasingly realize the usefulness of such a co-operation in both directions, and the benefits to be derived there from, and that they will also realize that anything solid and lasting can be built only through sincere and full cooperation. Nothing is achieved through sterile hostility and violence. But peace is essential, and there is no world peace without world law. Slogans and double standards are not a substitute; they only raise confusion and misery. We cannot buy peace with lawlessness. Such a policy would not succeed and mankind may have the misfortune of being led into a world war by an Organization meant to defend world peace. It is the duty of all to try to prevent the United Nations from becoming the betrayed Organization.