119. Madam President, I offer you
the spontaneous felicitations of the Nigerian delegation on
your richly deserved elevation to the Presidency of this
Assembly. Your election to that exalted office is a fitting
tribute to your own personal qualities and to our sister
Republic of Liberia of which you are an illustrious
daughter. Your election represents a shining testimony to
African renaissance and to the emancipation of African
womanhood. The Government and people of Nigeria salute
you on this outstanding achievement.
120. The delegation of Nigeria joins in the tributes which
have been paid from this rostrum to the memory of the late
Emilio Arenales, the President of the twenty-third session
of the General Assembly. We share in the grief of the
Government and people of Guatemala whom your eminent
predecessor served with distinction in many offices. We
mourn the death of Mr. Emilio Arenales as an accomplished
international statesman.
121. I wish also, on behalf of my delegation and Government,
to express deep appreciation of the outstanding
qualities of leadership and dedication to duty of our
Secretary-General, U Thant. His firm grasp and clear understanding
of the problems of the world, particularly those of
the new nations, as shown in the introduction to his annual
report [A/7601/Add.1], have renewed my Government’s
unfailing admiration for him and enhanced our confidence
in his sound judgement and integrity.
122. I wish to reaffirm my country’s strong belief that the
Charter of the United Nations has laid down the basic
principles and objectives which should regulate and promote
friendly relations between countries. But the noble
goals and objectives enshrined in the Charter will never be
attained if States, and particularly the big Powers, find
these goals and objectives too restrictive, indeed obstructive,
in their practice and pursuit of unbridled power
politics. Our Charter is a clarion call to all the nations of
the world to work for international peace and security; to
respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity
of all States, large and small; to abstain from
interference in the domestic affairs of other countries; to
eradicate all forms of domination, colonialism and racialism;
and to promote viable economic and social development
throughout the world. Indeed, the principle of the
inviolability of the territorial integrity of each Member
State is so central to the essence of our Charter that in
1963 the African Heads of States and Government consciously
and without qualification made it the cornerstone
of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity.
123. I regret to observe, however, that in spite of the strict
and mandatory injunctions enshrined in its Charter, the
United Nations appears to accept double standards in its
operations. Perhaps for historical reasons, our Organization
appears continually to look at the rear mirror while
attempting to pilot and drive forward the world’s vehicle of
time and destiny. It is significant that our Secretary-General
began his introduction to his annual report with a sentence
which you, Madam President, have also invoked in your
address, stating that: “During the past twelve months, the
deterioration of the international situation ... has continued”
[ibid., para. 1].
124. No major area of the world is free from dissidence
and division, from crises and confrontations, from ideological
conflicts, from privations and violence, from bias and
bigotry. This sorry state of affairs demands that all the
Member States of our Organization should dedicate themselves
anew to the principles of our Charter to which they
freely subscribed as the basis of world peace and security.
125. Last year, I expressed the encouragement which my
Government drew from the Paris talks on Viet-Nam. These
talks have, unfortunately, not yet brought the prospects of
peace in that unhappy country any nearer. Nevertheless,
the hope for peace is not lost. The parties to the conflict
have continued to profess their desire to bring it to an end.
We, in Nigeria, fervently hope that the people of Viet-Nam
will soon be delivered from a war which has ravished their
homeland for so long.
126. Nigeria is attached to the Middle East by authentic
bonds of history and culture. It was primarily because of
these considerations that Nigeria, then a member of the
Security Council, spared no effort and time, first, to
achieve a cease-fire during the June 1967 war between the
Arab States and Israel and, subsequently, to assist in the
negotiations which led to the adoption of Security Council
resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. My Government
remains convinced that the resolution clearly points
the way towards a fair and just solution of the problems of
the Middle East.
127. As reported by the Secretary-General in the introduction
to his annual report there is at present a marked
deterioration of the situation in the Middle East. My
delegation agrees with the Secretary-General’s remarks that
the “situation also creates, to a considerable extent, a crisis
of effectiveness for the United Nations and its Members”
[ibid., para. 65], and that “a will to attain peace by the
parties themselves is the decisive factor” [ibid., para. 69].
128. It is the considered opinion of my Government that
Israel would not be unduly handicapped if it took the first
step within the framework of the Security Council resolution
of 22 November 1967 [242(1967)] towards a
settlement, particularly of the questions of the termination
of its continuing occupation of Arab territories and of the
amelioration on humanitarian grounds of the living conditions
of Arab refugees.
129. Nigeria recognizes the existence of Israel as a fact,
and has diplomatic and economic relations with it. It is
therefore as a friend that we counsel it that the occupation
by force of the territories of Member States of our
Organization is incompatible with the Charter of the
Organization.
130. The existence of colonial oppression and racial
domination is utterly alien to the international order for
which the United Nations stands. In the ten years since the
historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples, the United Nations has
established an impressive record in the process of decolonization.
But, significant as the past achievement has been,
there are increasing signs of a half-hearted handling of the
remaining problems of decolonization, particularly in
southern Africa. The oppressed millions of southern Africa
now seem condemned to the absurd doctrine of white
supremacy rule with its concomitant intolerable colonial
domination. The apartheid régime in South Africa remains
unyielding in its tyrannical rule which reduces the black
population of the country to the status of mere chattels.
131. South Africa clings defiantly to its criminal usurpation
of the sacred rights of the people of Namibia and
obstructs the legitimate aspirations of the Namibian people.
In Zimbabwe, the rebel régime of Ian Smith has recently
placed the crowning piece of its dangerous edifice of racial
tyranny, the foundation stone of which was laid almost
four years ago in its unilateral and illegal declaration of
independence. The racist minority régime has now proclaimed
a “constitution” for Zimbabwe which violates all
the tenets of the rule of law and the universally accepted
standards of human and political rights. It is planning to
declare itself a republic in the expectation that it can thus
secure the necessary international recognition to ensure its
survival. Portugal — the third force in the “unholy alliance”
in southern Africa — maintains its grotesque colonial
doctrine which claims that Guinea (Bissau), Angola,
Mozambique and the so-called Portuguese possessions off
the coast of the African continent, are mere entities of a
long moribund Lusitanian Empire. Portugal is consequently
exerting itself and the resources made available to it by its
partners to combat the righteous forces of African freedom
committed to the liberation of those portions of the
African soil still under Portuguese domination.
132. In blind pursuit of their nefarious designs, South
Africa, Rhodesia and Portugal are now concerting their
resources to subvert the political independence of sovereign
African States. Independent Africa now stands in danger of
the disruptive efforts which the régimes of racial supremacy
are actively promoting in that continent. In the face of
those disruptive influences, the United Nations appears
impotent. It is no wonder that the oppressed people of
southern Africa are beginning to lose faith in the ability of
the international community to assist them in their
legitimate struggle to secure the enjoyment of liberty and
human dignity in the land of their birth. They have thus
decided on armed struggle for the attainment of their
liberty, a struggle which our Organization ought to support.
The Nigerian delegation fears that we cannot hope to win
the race against time in southern Africa as long as the
régimes in that region can count on the shelter and
protection of their friends who afford them the political.
economic and military collaboration aimed at truncating
the growth of independent Africa.
133. At the same time, there are a large number of
far-flung and isolated colonial dependencies, whose future
in the international context cannot be lightly dismissed by
this Organization. The destiny to which the “small Territories”
popularly referred to as “mini-States” will aspire is a
matter which weighs on the international conscience and
calls for the highest demonstration of a sense of inter-
national justice and responsibility. My Government does
not advocate a dogmatic or self-righteous solution for the
future of those small Territories. We are gratified that the
studies which have been undertaken on the status and
future positions of those Territories have been, on the
whole, thoughtful though tentative. We are anxious that the
rights of the peoples of those Territories should not be
breached and that in the final analysis their future will not
be dictated mainly by the adjudication of imperial interests.
134. We had hoped — and frequently advocated — that the
Conference of the Committee on Disarmament would
proceed expeditiously with the elaboration and conclusion
of substantive disarmament measures in the nuclear field
following the agreement on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons [resolution 2373 (XXII)].
This, regrettably, has not been the case. The Treaty itself
seeks to maintain the status quo in regard to the nuclear-weapon
Powers on the one hand and the non-nuclear-weapon
Powers on the other. It is not a nuclear disarmament
treaty but a treaty intended to clear the ground for
the nuclear weapon Powers, in accordance with Article VI
of the Treaty, to:
“Pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures
relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an
early date and to nuclear disarmament ...”.
This important provision of the Treaty was intended to give
the agreement a reciprocal balance of rights and its
signatories, that is, the nuclear-weapon Powers on the one
hand and the non-nuclear-weapon parties to the Treaty on
the other. It is therefore disappointing to note that not all
the major nuclear Powers have yet deposited their instruments
of ratification of the Treaty. There are still no clear
signs about when the long-awaited bilateral negotiations on
the limitation of offensive strategic nuclear weapons
delivery systems and systems of defence against ballistic
missiles will commence. It is our view that meaningful
progress on a comprehensive test ban treaty can only be
made if these talks begin at an early date and result in
satisfactory progress.
135. It would be disconcerting indeed if the pursuit of
other related efforts diverts attention from issues concerning
nuclear disarmament which have become more urgent
with the approval of the non-proliferation Treaty. The
Conference of the Committee on Disarmament must not
confine its activities only to non-nuclear and less urgent
disarmament measures. Nigeria has made its views known in
the Disarmament Committee regarding the manner of
priorities with which the Committee ought to proceed with
its work. My delegation also feels that it is extremely vital
to ensure that the balanced structure of the membership of
the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament is
preserved if its effectiveness as an appropriate negotiating
machinery for delicate disarmament issues is not to be
unduly prejudiced.
136. Our respected Secretary-General has proposed, in the
introduction to his annual report, that this Assembly
should agree to dedicate the 1970s as a disarmament decade
[A/7601/Add.1, para. 42]. While endorsing that proposal,
my delegation would be glad to see that the proposed
disarmament decade relates to the Second United Nations
Development Decade. We approach the end of the First
Development Decade with the goals and targets prescribed
for the period far outside the reach of the developing
countries. The aggregate rate of economic growth of more
than two-thirds of the world is today little more than half
of the rate of 5 per cent envisaged at the launching of the
present Development Decade. The richer nations of the
world have yet to assume the decisive universal role which
awaits them for enhancing the effectiveness and impact of
the United Nations agencies of international development.
There are still strong inhibitions against the dismantling of
imperial patterns of trade.
137. There has been no perceptible advance from the
position of allotting to the developing countries the status
of recipients of aid and technical assistance. There has been
little effort to accept the concept that the developing
nations should not suffer from unfavourable terms of trade
and should be assisted to stand on their own feet
economically, paying their own way in an equitable
international economic order.
138. On a practical level, we still await the fulfilment of
the long-standing promise that the developed countries as a
whole will pledge one per cent of their gross national
product for development assistance to the poorer countries;
the decisions mutually agreed to at the second session of
UNCTAD in New Delhi over eighteen months ago,
regarding non-discriminatory and non-reciprocal preferences
in favour of developing countries, have yet to be
implemented.
139. Those are the inadequacies for which we must
formulate urgent reforms as we finalize the preparations for
the Second United Nations Development Decade. The
Nigerian delegation is participating actively in the technical
work of the Preparatory Committee for the Second United
Nations Development Decade established last session [resolution
2411 (XXIII)]. My delegation believes that existing
United Nations development institutions must be reorganized,
and reoriented to enable them to promote effectively
the social and economic objectives of the Second Development
Decade.
140. While the United Nations must increase its role in
promoting international economic co-operation and social
progress, its central influence as an instrument for the
maintenance of international peace and security must not
be diminished. In this regard, the Nigerian delegation notes
with interest and approbation that, at the instance of the
Government of the USSR, an item on “the strengthening of
international security” is now on the agenda of this
Assembly.
141. Permit me now to turn to the painful conflict in my
country to which some delegations have referred in their
statements before this Assembly, despite the prohibitive
provisions of Article 2, paragraph 7, of our Charter. First of
all, I wish to pay most respectful tribute to the good sense,
rich experience and the transcendent sense of history, so
characteristically African, which the Organization of
African Unity Consultative Committee on Nigeria, as well
as the Assembly of African Heads of State and Government,
demonstrated in their resolution 58(VI) of 10
September 1969 adopted at Addis Ababa.
142. I wish to pay special tribute to His Imperial Majesty
Emperor Haile Selassie I and the other members of the
Committee, whose efforts should have been crowned with
success by now, but for the intransigence of the secessionist
leadership, which is financed and sustained by neo-colonialist
Powers outside Africa. To those leaders of Africa, the
conflict in my country is a real tragedy, not only for
Nigeria but for all Africa. Those non-Africans who on the
basis of unsubstantiated press reports and grotesque propaganda
merely discuss the conflict as an intellectual exercise
or out of naked self-interest deserve understanding, not
condemnation. For it is too much to expect that they
should change so soon their historical habits of over two
hundred years of exploiting Africa and of telling Africans
that they believe, in their own selfish interests, to be good
for the African.
143. To those representatives who have expressed genuine
concern and sympathy on humanitarian grounds for the
victims of our conflict, and whose countries — legally, and
without ill motives — have provided relief supplies, I wish to
express the most sincere thanks of my Government. I also
wish to thank the relief agencies, such as UNICEF and the
International Committee of the Red Cross, for their help
and assistance.
144. As I stated last year [1692nd meeting], I reaffirm
that my Government has never, and will never, stand in the
way of relief supplies and succour to the civilian victims of
this tragic conflict. Our Secretary-General, U Thant, knows
this as a fact and has confirmed it in several statements. It
must however remain the understanding of my Government
that humanitarianism concerns itself primarily with human
beings, with the sufferings of individuals, and. not with
States and Governments. To translate humanitarian considerations
into political concepts, to convert them into an
acceptance or recognition of a rebel régime which threatens
the very existence of a Member State of this Organization,
is a blatant and crude violation of all standards of civilized
international conduct and practice.
145. It is interesting to read from a report in The New
York Times of 25 September 1969, by one Eric Pace, that a
rebel representative had indicated to him: “that private
creditors in France, Britain, United States and elsewhere
had helped to finance the commercial imports” of the rebel
régime. Mr. Pace went on to report that the same rebel
representative — I quote again here — “also contended that
operations of foreign relief agencies here brought the
so-called Biafra roughly $100,000 a month in hard currency”.
146. One must read the above report in The New York
Times along with an editorial which appeared in the The
Times of London of 24 September 1969. Three significant
points were made in that editorial:
1. “[General] Ojukwu has put himself in the wrong by
his refusal to accept the scheme for daylight relief flights
worked out between the International Red Cross and the
Nigerian Government. He had opened himself to serious
question from humanitarian bodies whether he is sincere in
his appeals for help for his starving children, sick and aged
folk, or sees in their plight just another weapon to maintain
Biafra’s struggle for independence.
2. “At the same time, [General] Ojukwu has turned
down General Gowon’s offer of peace talks within the
framework of the OAU resolution this month. It, too,
embodies big concessions. The resolution now only asks
both parties to accept the suspension of hostilities and the
opening of negotiations intended to preserve the unity of
Nigeria.
3. “The conclusion can only be that, failing new action,
the war will go on. But as Western pressure has forced
Lagos to adopt a reasonable position, the time has come to
seek in turn some leverage against Ojukwu’s intransigence.
It can only be applied by France. France is 'Biafra’s' main
supplier of arms ... France should press [General] Ojukwu
for a sensible attitude to relief and peace talks. A word
from France would very possibly make him meet reason
with reason now. The terrible sufferings of the Biafran
people can only be mitigated by relief or ended by
negotiation”.
147. From the foregoing quotation, one begins to doubt
the sincerity of some of those delegations which have
spoken so lyrically about the humanitarian causes they
claim to be serving in Nigeria. From these quotations it
should no longer be difficult to identify the “villains of the
piece”, the countries which are preventing the achievement
of peace in Nigeria, a peace which is so necessary for the
national unity and territorial integrity of Nigeria. From the
collective wisdom of the African Heads of State and
Government, consistently reflected in all their resolutions
aimed at the restoration of peace and unity in Nigeria, from
the unexampled agreement which my Government has
concluded with the International Committee of the Red
Cross to ensure the unimpeded flow of relief supplies to the
civilians in the secessionist enclave and from the reports of
several independent observers, including those of the
international team of observers, which have been eloquently
confirmed by Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the most
outstanding Nigerian of Ibo extraction and former President
of Nigeria, I challenge any delegation in this Assembly
to deny that it is the secessionist leaders who stand in the
way of relief supply to civilian victims and of peaceful
negotiations. As for the few African countries which act in
defiance of the nearly unanimous decisions of the Organization
for African Unity, one can only liken them to the
undisciplined soldier who believes that everyone else in his
marching column, except himself, is out of step.
148. There is no longer any secret from where the rebel
régime, which has no economic resources and which for
over two years had no export trade whatsoever, continues
to obtain the hard currency to pay for the modern weapons
it uses against its fatherland and with which it pays those
mercenaries from Sweden, France, Canada, Portugal,
Belgium, South Africa, Rhodesia, the United States of
America and other Western countries — mercenaries who
have been branded and condemned by the United Nations
in its resolutions as international bandits and criminal
outlaws. That these racist renegades and their compeers
brazenly and openly raise funds in their own countries with
which they wage a war, often an aerial war against Nigeria
and with which they finance and conduct a campaign of
vilification aimed at the dismemberment of that country, is
a travesty of the much vaunted humanitarianism of the
Western world.
149. My Government remains unflinching in its conviction
that in the final analysis the cause of one integral Nigeria
will triumph. The people of my country are enduring a
painful spell in their national history. As has happened in
the history of other countries involved in civil wars, we are
confident that national reconciliation will follow this bitter
experience of civil conflict.
150. In the past three years my Government has been
dismayed by declining propriety in the international conduct
of certain Governments. There have been unwarranted
assaults on the sovereignty of Nigeria; external subversion
has been directed. against the political independence of my
country. Naturally, we cannot dismiss these experiences
from the national memory. Nevertheless, I wish to reaffirm
that today, the ninth anniversary of Nigeria’s independence
and admission to the United Nations as one united entity,
Nigeria, faithful to the United Nations Charter, will not
depart from its traditional respect for the highest standards
of orderly international relations. We shall continue our
policy of friendship and goodwill towards all nations which
wish to maintain such relations with Nigeria. This is a
responsibility which every Member of the United Nations
has assumed and to which we must all demonstrate our
continuing commitment.