Senegal, 2011

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.