Nigeria, 1969

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.