Somalia, 1969

39. I should like to begin my

intervention by presenting my most sincere congratulations

to the President on her election to the high office of

President of this session of the United Nations General

Assembly. In Somalia, during the days of our Trusteeship

under this Organization, we had a great champion for our

cause, our liberty and our independence in the person of

the august President of this General Assembly. I feel sure

that all will agree with me that the election of Miss Brooks

to this high office is a well-deserved and fitting tribute to a

distinguished career in international politics and in the

pursuit of international peace and world understanding.

Madam, I congratulate you in the implicit belief that this is

an honour which you have richly deserved.

40. In turning to some of the crucial issues before this

Assembly, I wish not only to outline the views of the

Somali Republic on those issues, but also to raise a matter

which is not, as such, on the agenda of this Assembly:

I refer to the authority of the United Nations.

41. Immediately after San Francisco, in 1945, there were

many people throughout the world who saw in this new

United Nations not only a symbol of mankind’s desire for

peace and decency, but also an embodiment of the

authority — I emphasize that word “authority“ — of the

community of nations. Millions of people from the emerging

nations were soon to share in this view of the

Organization, for it was through the United Nations that

their cherished goal of independence was reached. I may

add that the peoples of the new nations shared this view at

a time when, in the long-established States of the northern

hemisphere, disillusionment with this view and disappointment

with the Organization had already set in. We are now

in 1969 at a stage when disillusionment and disappointment

have spread among old and new nations alike.

42. We are, and have been for many years, witnessing a

decline in the authority of this Organization which will, if it

continues, destroy the high hopes upon which it was

founded. When we speak of hopes it is important to realize

that these relate to the issues of peace, security, human

decency and welfare, upon which the world structure of

human society depends.

43. There is one view, which may be right, that this is a

transitory phase. It is a view which assumes that somehow

rivalries and antagonisms between the great Powers themselves

and between other States will cease and that the

entire membership will one day again be united in the

pursuit of the aims and principles of the Charter. This may

be so, but I can discern no foundation of fact to support it.

Moreover, this view implies an acceptance of events in some

way beyond our control and produces indifference, or at

least inaction, in the face of this tragic decline of the

authority of the United Nations.

44. I cannot take that view; not because I am convinced it

is wrong but because I am convinced that mankind cannot

take the risk that it may be wrong. There is too much at

stake to leave matters to chance and to justify inaction or

indifference. I believe, therefore, that all Members must, in

their own interest and for the sake of their own people,

take positive action to restore the authority of the United Nations.

45. I trust, Madam President, that you will not regard

what I have just said as a digression from the issues before

this Assembly. It is my belief that it is vital to those issues,

for I would suggest that in each and every one of them a

clear test of the rightness of the decisions we shall reach is

to be found in the following question: “Does the decision

enhance the authority of the United Nations?” The

question is not “Does the decision coincide with my State’s

special interests?” or “Does the decision impose any

burdens or obligations upon my State?“ I do not, of

course, deny that such questions will be asked of themselves

by delegations, and should be asked, but we would be

deluding ourselves if we believe that in the answers to those

questions lies a true criterion of the rightness of action of

this Organization.

46. Permit me to ask my own question in relation to some

of the issues before this Assembly and, in so doing, disperse

any doubts about the relevance of my discussion of the

authority of the Organization.

47. In the Middle East this Organization has, for more

than 20 years, seen a total refusal by Israel to implement

the General Assembly’s resolutions relating to the Palestinian

refugees; neither repatriation nor compensation has

been afforded to them. Thus, for more than 20 years, one

and a half million people have been condemned to refugee

Status and denied elementary justice. Not all the humanitarian

efforts of UNRWA, to which I pay sincere tribute,

nor those of the Arab host States which have afforded them

refuge can compensate for the injustice done to these

people. When, I ask, will the Organization take the action

necessary to assert its authority?

48. It is this continuing injustice more than any other

factor, which has ensured that the Middle East is a constant

source of regional conflict and international insecurity. It

has been particularly disheartening to see over the past 20

years the ambivalent attitude shown towards this question

by powerful Members of the United Nations whose

influence, if powerfully exerted, might long since have

brought about a settlement. In times of crisis when violence

in the Middle East threatened international peace, it was

readily acknowledged that the failure of the United Nations

to settle the problem of the Palestinian refugees lay at the

heart of the Middle East question. Resolutions were

adopted affirming or reaffirming the need to bring about an

end to the plight of these people, but when the crisis and

the immediate danger to international security passed,

national self-interest and partisan views reasserted themselves.

A depressing pattern can be traced over the years,

either of the return to apathy or of open opposition

towards any effort to implement the relevant resolutions.

49. Following the June war of 1967, the four permanent

members of the Security Council voted in favour of a

resolution [242(1967)] which indicated the essential

principles that should lie at the basis of a settlement. As

recently as 20 September 1969, the Foreign Ministers of

the permanent members of the Security Council reaffirmed

that that resolution should be supported and carried out.

Yet not a single provision of that resolution has been

implemented. After more than two years, Israeli troops

remain in occupation of large areas of Arab territory as the

spoils of war.

50. This situation became even more untenable when the

Israeli authorities began to take illegal measures to alter the

status of Jerusalem. The necessity of ensuring that these

measures be rescinded is one on which the membership of

this Organization has reached almost unanimous agreement.

Yet, the Israeli Government continues to flout with

impunity the Security Council and General Assembly

resolutions on this question, and has openly stated its

determination to ignore the consensus expressed by the

international community.

51. Recent events, culminating in the desecration through

arson of the Al Aqsa Mosque, underline the necessity of

implementing United Nations resolutions on the status of

Jerusalem. The “relocation” of Arab families in Jerusalem

from their homes to areas decided on by the Israelis calls to

mind similar acts of injustice with ethnic motivations which

are at present being carried out in Rhodesia and southern

Africa. There should be no question that this is a case

where the United Nations needs to take action to ensure

that its decisions are carried out.

52. We should be under no illusions about the implications

for the Organization of what has happened in the Middle

East. If this Organization permits a State to acquire and

hold territory by force, the most basic principle of the

Charter — I refer to the prohibition of the use of force in

Article 2, paragraph 4 — becomes meaningless. This was exactly

the way in which the League of Nations spelt out its

own doom and initiated a chain of events leading to the

Second World War.

53. I realize, of course, that these past two years have seen

very great efforts by Ambassador Jarring as Special Representative

of the Secretary-General and by the major Powers

to produce a settlement. These efforts were rightly and

properly made. But if, at the end of these two years, there

has been no settlement and no compliance with the

Security Council’s resolution, the time has clearly come for

this Organization to decide upon measures which will

compel respect for its decisions.

54. There are those who would point to the difficulties of

taking compelling action. Of course, difficulties do exist

but if this Organization is not prepared to face up to those

difficulties and to make sincere efforts to overcome them,

then it might as well admit that it has failed in its original

purpose and mission.

55. If I may turn to the situations in Rhodesia, South

Africa and Namibia, I would, in similar vein, suggest that

the time has arrived when the Organization must assert its

authority. No one doubts the justice of the stand taken by

the Organization; why, therefore, the endless delays and

hesitations? The answer, known to us all, is that some

special interests of particular States are affected. However,

we must reaffirm that this does not justify inaction by the

Organization. The Charter provides very wisely that measures

decided upon by the Security Council shall not be

jeopardized by difficulties which they may cause to

law-abiding States. Article 49 states: “The Members of the

United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in

carrying out the measures...“ and Article 50 elaborates on

this principle.

56. If certain powerful States fear some economic disadvantages

as a result of positive action by the Organization,

they must be reminded that power implies responsibilities

and requires foresight. It is far better to accept a temporary

economic dislocation of trade and see a just solution

reached than to allow these situations to deteriorate

further. For deteriorate they most certainly will, and if a

just solution is not imposed we shall see a holocaust which

will cause far greater economic harm and human misery

than anything that can be foreseen now.

57. I shall not dwell here in any detail on the problems of

southern Africa since our delegation will state the views of

my Government in detail at the Committee level, and since

our permanent representative has, adequately and ably,

stated the views of the Somali Republic at the Sub-Committee

on apartheid. I should like, however. to declare

that the Somali Republic, like many States all over the

world, believes that the situation in southern Africa

constitutes as grave a challenge to the United Nations as

any it has yet had to face. The problems of this region

challenge both the Organization’s authority and the fundamental

principles of human rights which are explicit and

implicit in the United Nations Charter.

58. In dealing with the problems of the Middle East and of

southern Africa, I have spoken of the need for the United

Nations to take compelling action to make its decisions

prevail. I anticipate the inevitable query as to the nature of

the compelling action about which I have spoken. I would

respond immediately that the choice is not between using

armed force on behalf of the Organization, or doing

nothing. Indeed, I would not suggest the use of armed force

when other methods of compulsion are available. We must

realize that mere resolutions, however formidable their

terms, which are not carried out do not constitute any form

of compulsion, and may ultimately diminish the authority

of the United Nations.

59. There remains, however, a vast area of political and

economic pressure which has a great potential as a means of

compulsion and which the Organization has only marginally

used, even then never with the unanimous loyalty and

sincerity of the whole membership. For example, the

Sanctions Committee, operating in relation to the Security

Council’s decisions on Rhodesia, is no more than a tentative

essay into that area of potential pressure upon recalcitrant

States. Again, let us not forget that the Charter lays great

store on measures of sanctions of a non-military nature,

such as those mentioned in Article 41. In fact, the great

underlying idea of these and other provisions of the

Charter, especially Chapter VII, is that such non-military

measures, if vigorously and loyally executed, will produce

the desired result without the need for ultimate recourse to

collective military measures. The Somali Republic considers

it necessary that either the Secretary-General or an appropriate

existing committee, or a committee to be formed for

this purpose, be asked to examine without delay and as a

matter of urgent priority, all non-military ways and means

of forcing compliance with decisions reached by the highest

organs of the United Nations. That organ would naturally

utilize the experience of the Sanctions Committee.

60. I hope that in thus speaking, I do not give the

impression that the restoration of the authority of the

United Nations means no more than the organization and

improvement of techniques of economic and political

coercion. There are, in fact, many other issues before this

Assembly to which the question of authority is relevant in

other ways.

61. Allow me to refer to the question of the peaceful uses

of the sea-bed and the ocean floor beyond the limits of

national jurisdiction and in particular to the excellent

report of the Secretary-General [see A/7622, annex II]. I

am, frankly, apprehensive that in this matter of tremendous

potential importance, a regime will be introduced which

will reduce the United Nations to little more than a registry

of claims and a disseminator of information on current

activities. I pose the same question; can we not, nay, must

we not, devise a regime which would give real authority to

the United Nations?

62. In relation to the several items upon our agenda which

stem from the decolonization process, it is apparent that

some Member States continue to defy the authority of the

Organization, either to reject the right of self-determination

of peoples or to restrict or reinterpret that right in a

manner quite contrary to that which the General Assembly

has laid down. The Somali Republic concedes to no State a

more ardent support of this imperative principle of peaceful

evolution of society than its own. The Somali Republic is

completely and utterly opposed to the continuance of alien

rule over peoples that desire to shape their political future

in some other way. This is a problem which vitally affects

the Somali Republic and upon which it has long sought an

assertion, by the United Nations, of a consistent stand on

principle. Nothing can more undermine the authority of the

United Nations than to see deviations from the principle of

self-determination by exceptions and qualifications, which

may satisfy some alleged or short-range interests of particular

States, but which are clearly inconsistent with that principle.

63. There is a quite genuine concern with the practical

implementation of the right of self-determination in cases

where economic, geographical and other considerations

raise doubts about the viability of particular territories once

they have gained independence, or in the case of the

Balkanization of an existing sovereign State. This concern is

real and must be treated quite separately from the more

spurious reservations about which I have just spoken.

64. Having spoken of self-determination as one basic

human right, allow me to refer to other matters on our

agenda concerning human rights. I believe that we now have

sad, and indeed appalling proof of the necessity for some

action by this Organization to safeguard human rights

during armed conflicts. In view, especially, of the terrible

suffering imposed. for years upon innocent civilians, men,

women and children, in Viet-Nam, the last sessions of this

Assembly, as well as the Teheran Conference of 1968,

adopted extremely important resolutions; but those resolutions,

again, have proved insufficient. In the same way, the

Middle East conflict of June 1967 and the ensuing

occupation of Arab territory by Israel created a situation in

which there was a clear need to protect the rights of the

Arab civilians within the occupied territories. This Organization

has now seen report after report indicating the need

for vigilance. Arbitrary detention and violence against

civilians, the taking or destruction of property and the

desecration of places of religious worship, these are all

incidents which are known to have taken place. Many

people, perhaps naively, had believed that the right of the

civilian inhabitants would be amply protected under the

Geneva Convention of 1949, to which Israel is a party.

However, at no stage has Israel appointed a Protecting foul

Power or requested or allowed any organization, even the

International Committee of the Red Cross, to act as a

substitute therefor. In short, that Convention has remained

without any form of supervision as required by its terms.

This breach of the Convention is not answerable by

arguments about the need for protection of the human

rights of Jews in Arab countries, for the two situations are

not parallel and were never treated as parallel in the Geneva

Convention.

65. There is, of course, a quite separate issue, namely, the

reed for a more effective machinery for supervision of

human rights, outside the context of armed conflict. The

Somali Government supports the proposition that there

should be a United Nations High Commissioner for Human

Rights. However, the crucial question will be his authority

and, through him, the authority of the United Nations. The

situations in which there is the greatest need for such a

United Nations “presence” or authority are, by definition

those in which the territorial State is least likely to consent

to such a “presence”, that is, to respect such authority.

Perhaps the Assembly did not go far enough in the Optional

Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights of 16 December 1966 [resolution 2200 A

(XXI), annex]. Perhaps the Assembly should, under particularly

grave circumstances, presume a Member to have

violated its obligations under the Charter respecting human

rights, if and when such a State refuses to permit a United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights or an

analogous organ to exercise his or its authority. If we fail to

ensure, in one way or another, the exercise of such a

function on behalf of the Organization whenever an urgent

need exists, our decision on this item will have done very

little to enhance the authority of the United Nations.

66. There is one more issue, relevant to my theme on the

authority of the United Nations, on which I should like to

state the views of my Government, and this is the question

of the restoration of the rights of the People’s Republic of

China in the United Nations. The arguments in support of

seating the representatives of the largest nation State in the

world, a State which is also a nuclear Power, would seem to

be obvious. They have been stated often enough in this

Assembly and they are given added weight by the reference

last month of the Secretary-General to the “mad mo-

momentum” of the nuclear arms race, and to his appeal that

every Government should make “serious attempts... to

associate in one way or another all five nuclear Powers with

the negotiations for disarmament” [A/7601/Add.1,

para. 45]. We cannot ask a State to respect our authority

when we exclude that State from participation in our

decision-making machinery. In addition, we cannot expect

the authority of the United Nations to carry full weight if

the principle of universality is ignored. Suffice it for me to

say that my delegation will support, as it has always done,

any resolutions that would enable the representatives of the

People’s Republic of China to take their rightful place in

this Assembly, in the Security Council and in all the bodies

of the United Nations.

67. I should like to conclude by saying that what is at

faults not the Charter of this great Organization; what is at

fault are not the purposes and principles of this Organization,

on the contrary, those purposes and principles are and

remain true and sacrosanct. Nor can one attribute the

world's sorrow and concern to all the various details of the

functioning of the United Nations. What is urgently needed

is the solemn and sincere rededication of all the Members to

the basic ideas of the Charter. If, however, some States are

unwilling to do so, then the letter and spirit of the Charter

itself demands that we do not close our eyes but act with

that measure of energy and resolve dictated by wisdom,

before it is too late.