Senegal, 1969

108. Madam President, I am happy to offer you the

congratulations of the delegation of Senegal on your

unanimously welcomed election to the presidency of the United

Nations General Assembly. Your election at this twenty-fourth

session has a significance of its own, in that Liberia,

together with Ethiopia, has for more than a century been a

living symbol and an embodiment of certain hope, a symbol

of Africa’s hope for recovery of independence. The

confidence which the representatives of the nations

gathered here together have shown in you is reinforced by

the encouraging presence among them of the

representatives of 41 African States.

109. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a

tribute to the memory of President Emilio Arenales, who,

withstanding the disease which was already afflicting him,

conducted the work of the twenty-third session with a

self-denial and courage worthy of our respect.

110. The novelty, if any is to be sought, in this session will

not be solely connected with the importance of the

problems raised. Obviously it is not likely to be found in

such agenda items as peace and international security, or

the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Seek it

rather in the nature of certain matters which suddenly seem

more immediate and under your presidency cannot fail to

rouse an echo. First comes the granting of independence to

countries and peoples still dependent; secondly, the grave

matter of violations of human rights and fundamental

freedoms; and, as always, the practice of apartheid and

discrimination, which, despite everything, we must believe

will be overcome in the end by the mutual understanding

and respect of humanity. The mere interest of the

communities concerned demands it, because the solidarity

to bind them and their own aims together cannot be

achieved in a spirit of hatred; and a people cannot become

great by oppressing the weak.

111. Our session opens at a time when the most trying

problems facing the international community seem to be

those of the younger States, those least firmly rooted and

therefore the most vulnerable. Not that it could be

suggested that other States have no obstacles to overcome,

no external pressures or internal contingencies to allow for;

or that prosperity can be achieved without hard work and

innovation, without boldness and risk, without continuous

effort at reflexion, research and imagination. This is clearly

to be seen in the nearest developed countries to Africa,

those for instance of Europe.

112. Europe has, before our eyes, emerged from the ruins

of the Second World War, dressed its wounds, rebuilt its

economy; in a framework of multilateral co-operation it is

building an extended economy with the groups of States

that compose it. Beyond its own frontiers, in co-operation

with the Africa it spent so long in discovering, it is building

new links based on mutual respect of legitimate interests.

113. In spite of all Europe’s acquisitions, its resources in

men and capital, its industrial capacity, its high level of

development — in spite of all these factors together, or

perhaps as a result of them — Europe is now undergoing

visible changes in its political institutions, its internal

organization and even its economic and social structures.

These changes are affecting even its educational system,

untouched by time until now; but their most striking

feature is that they are the fruit of an aspiration which

seems characteristic of modern societies. Their purpose in

these countries is simply a rise in the standard of living; but

this, if one thinks about it, in the last analysis means an

improvement in the condition of mankind. Is not this

lesson even more important for the nations we call the third

world, no doubt by analogy with the “third estate“ of

former times? What should these nations derive from the

example offered by the developed countries, their political

and economic structures, if not the help necessary for their

people’s progress towards peace and justice, and, I might

add, for correction of the economic disparities between

them and those countries?

114. The first United Nations Development Decade is

drawing to a close. What are now the major trends or

prominent features of the world economy?

115. The industrialized countries are still in fact absolute

masters of the economy. They dominate it by their

technology, their equipment, their production and the

intelligence and efficiency of their organization. They hold

in their hands an infrastructure of transport, communications

and contacts covering the whole world, while the

developing countries are often still restricted by a

predominantly agricultural economy. In more than one respect they

still depend on the industrialized countries which control

the markets alike for commodities and for manufactures.

116. During the first Decade the richer countries have

managed to increase their annual incomes by 400,000

million dollars. Over the same period, all the incomes of the

developing countries added together have been less than

that sum. Their annual income, rarely more than $200 per

head, seems very low when we remember that in the

industrialized countries the average is between $1,000 and

$1,500, and in some countries even $3,000. Africa, at its

present rate of growth, would need more than 50 years to

double its income per head.

117. What the young countries expect from the international

community is a new definition of economic relationships

and a new form of participation in their development.

118. We know that there have been considerable changes

on the world market in the relative positions of

commodities and manufactures. While the index of agricultural

prices has scarcely gone up by 10 or 15 per cent, the price

of some finished goods has risen by 100 per cent. Is not the

remedy, as has already been said, reorganization of the

commodity markets? At any rate, it is closely bound up

with the revaluation and stabilization of agricultural prices.

Greater flexibility in some economic and financial legislation

would by itself be of some help. But might not the

solution one day be found in adopting a “correction index”

between agricultural prices and the prices of manufactures?

119. It has often been asserted that during the first

Decade there was no development policy. Surely the aim in

the second Decade should be to hasten the incorporation of

the developing countries in the circuit of the modern

economy. In place of the traditional exports of raw

materials from under-developed countries, there should be a

policy for the exploitation and industrialization of their

resources on the spot. The aim should be to build, with the

industrialized countries, an integrated economy inspired by

a will for understanding and co-operation, mutual assistance

and solidarity between all nations.

120. The first Decade had as one of its aims an annual

economic growth rate of 5 per cent, It seems to be accepted

that the second Decade might achieve an increase of 6 to 7

per cent in per capita income and of 8 to 9 per cent in

industrial production. Undoubtedly any such progress

would depend in the first place on the effort at development

made by the countries concerned, but also on the

contribution of the richer countries to this effort. To be

more effective, the 1 per cent of the gross national product

devoted by certain industrialized countries to development

assistance needs to be associated with a policy of increased

investment and economic promotion.

121. The community of nations certainly has the resources

and technology needed to solve the problem of

under-development; and seeing that it has those resources

the contrast is striking between the successes and achievements

of technology and science and the slow progress of humanity.

122. Certainly we do not regret the success of the new

human organ transplants, still less the tremendous achievements

of the American astronauts. There has never before

been such an impressive revelation of the human intelligence

and of the extent of its creative power; but shall the

great nations that have triumphed over space be powerless

in face of the cruel inequalities here on earth, among men?

123. When I was speaking a moment ago of the special

problems of the young States, I was thinking of the peace

hoped for by millions of men in various regions of Africa

and in the Middle East, still heavy with menace. I might add

also South-East Asia, and remark that after the halt in the

bombing of North Viet-Nam the withdrawal of non-Viet-Namese

troops might give new reason to hope for the

main goal — that is, peace — so eagerly desired from the

present negotiations.

124. The most sombre situation, however, is in Africa,

particularly in the territories still under the domination of

Portugal and still more in Rhodesia and Namibia. What does

the presence of Portugal in African territories stand for,

apart from the vicissitudes of history that have engendered.

all other forms of colonization in the world, even before

Africa? But since the Declaration on the Granting of

Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples the United

Nations has been devoting ceaseless effort to establishing

new relations for these peoples, based on the free

expression of their will and on respect for the human

personality. It would be sad indeed to continue to ignore

that fact and not to realize that the freedom fighters of

Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau), now struggling

for national liberation, do not regard Portugal as an enemy

for ever. The Portuguese repression is in a sense worse than

obstinacy: it is blindness. Recourse to violence cannot be a

constructive solution. Repression must cease, and then a

healthy confrontation and fruitful negotiation can take its

place to resolve the disputes which weapons cannot settle.

Has not the time come for Portugal to ponder on the

example of other peoples who have been colonizers and,

closer at hand, on the quite recent example of Spain and

Equatorial Guinea?

125. Another subject of preoccupation is the Rhodesian

question. Two communities are involved: 250,000 European

immigrants to Africa, and 4 million Africans, a

minority set against the authority of the country that has

given it its strength; four years of fruitless negotiation, an

arsenal of economic and diplomatic sanctions that are more

symbolic than effective. And the greatest mockery is that

the world no longer condemns unanimously a constitution

which gives a handful of 250,000 immigrants rights superior

to those of 4 million Africans! When all has been said — complicity

in weakness, collusion of interests, solidarity

between régimes which have a strange resemblance to other

pre-war régimes—our Organization certainly cannot forget

that abandonment of the weaker countries of Europe to

martyrdom did not in the event serve the peace.

126. As you have observed, I have taken a long time to

reach the painful conflict in Nigeria, that fratricidal struggle

which causes so much concern to all African States, since

all ate aware that within them is the seed of a similar

tragedy. African statesmen realize this, and have constantly

urged an unconditional cease-fire and negotiations which

would finally guarantee security of the person and property

of all, in a Nigeria which would retain its personality. How

can the division of any country and opposition between its

component parts be accepted today when everywhere we

have to think in terms of “economic units”, “large-scale

enterprises” and “regional groupings”?

127. My delegation’s feeling is that it is essential, above

all, to support the efforts to bring about reconciliation and

mutual understanding between those who are today in

conflict. This is surely in the first instance the task of the

Organization of African Unity. Nevertheless, it might be

asked whether an effort should not be made to dam the

supply of armaments and so silence the guns.

128. I have purposely left to the end the consideration of

two complicated situations, each in a country formerly

under League of Nations Mandate. I refer to the situation in

Namibia, and also, through a strange coincidence, to the

situation in the Middle East; for was not the situation there

virtually a result of the removal of the Palestine Mandate?

Is it not a result of the confrontation between Israel and

the Arab countries, created by the partition of Palestine?

129. Of course analysis is easier with hindsight. All the

same, we must admit that the course of events would have

been different if Arab Palestine had not been occupied. We

are likewise led to observe that the choice between

compensation and repatriation offered to the Palestinians

and the subsequent setting-up of the United Nations Relief

and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

have never reassured anyone. However, 20 years after the

vote on the resolution which gave birth to Israel, a Security

Council resolution [242 (1967)] of November 1967 has

just defined the bases for a settlement which could put an

end to the Israel-Arab crisis.

130. Those bases lay down a framework which we must

never tire of repeating: respect for the sovereignty and

territorial integrity of States; unconditional rejection of the

annexation by force of the territory of one State by

another, and hence the withdrawal of the Israeli armed

forces from the occupied Arab territories; a just solution of

the Palestinian problem; and freedom of navigation on the

international waterways of the region.

131. The Arab States have bowed to the authority of the

Security Council of the United Nations. We must ask Israel

to respect international law. There is no other way to

guarantee to all a just and durable peace.

132. Recent events in Jerusalem and the criminal arson of

which we age all aware have brutally reminded the world

that to safeguard and protect the Holy Places the status

conferred by 13 centuries of history on the Holy City of

Jerusalem must be respected.

133. In conclusion, I will refer to the situation in Namibia.

Everyone knows that this territory was placed under

League of Nations Mandate in 1920. Everyone is aware

that, since the demise of the League of Nations, the United

Nations has assumed an identical role vis-a-vis the

international community. Accordingly it is easy to understand the

stupor provoked by the incredible judgment handed down

by the International Court of Justice in 1966.

134. South Africa’s attitude towards the United Nations

Council for Namibia is well known; the deliberate violation

and infractions of the population’s rights are no secret to

anyone; but none of these things can affect the legitimacy

of those rights.

135. My delegation does not believe there is any need for

greater emphasis in stating that Namibia is entitled to

independence, and in stating it with the serene conviction

of those who know that their cause is just.