Sudan, 1969

1. Madam President, it is with

a feeling of deep satisfaction that I express my congratulations

to you on your election to the presidency of the

twenty-fourth session of the General Assembly. You have

represented your country at the United Nations for some

years with competence and distinction. Now, Madam

President, it is the whole of Africa and not only your

country that has desired the honour and privilege of your

election to this distinguished office. As an African, I am

delighted to congratulate you most sincerely on this rare

and well-deserved privilege.

2. However, Madam President, although the African Members

of this Assembly may rejoice in your election, they

have, looking outside this Assembly, little cause for

satisfaction. They have to reflect most soberly and seriously

that in this age of neo-colonialism Africans continue to

suffer the frustration of their efforts to achieve ultimate

liberation.

3. We in the Sudan, like the peoples of many other

countries in Africa and Asia, regained our independence

when colonialism was beginning to recede as a result of the

determined efforts of the peoples of these two continents

to be free of foreign domination. The fourteen years of our

independence since 1956 have been years of great experience.

Like so many other countries of the African

continent, we emerged as a sovereign nation after the

disruption and exploitation of the colonial era, in the

confidence that we would be able to achieve our aims

through the representative institutions of liberal democracy.

We had hoped to co-operate with all nations on

friendly and equal terms.

4. We were soon to learn, however, that independence was

without meaning or value if it were not complete in every

way, in the economic as well as in the political spheres. It

did not take us long to discover that the forms of Western

democracy, imposed on tribal and under-developed institutions,

could only lead to the consolidation of the forces of

reaction. We also learnt that a system of free and

uncontrolled economic enterprise, in conditions of general

under-development, would inevitably result in exploitation

and injustice. We came ultimately to realize that in order to

safeguard our sovereignty and national unity we had to be

constantly watchful and vigilant against the forces of

neo-colonialism that continued to support and encourage

divisiveness and dissension. This realization did not come

easily to us, nor did it come without sacrifice.

5. My Government has pledged itself to a policy that takes

into account all the lessons that we learnt during those

fourteen years of trials and tribulations, the fourteen years

of our independence. We declared in one of the first edicts

of our revolutionary Government that our policy would be

directed primarily towards the betterment of our forgotten

people, the peasants and the workers to whom independence

had meant little more than a change of masters. One

of the first acts of this revolutionary Government was to

define the goals of our economic policy—rejecting all forms

of exploitation within the country and foreign domination

from without.

6. We refused economic aid that would seek to impose on

us conditions on how the funds were to be invested or

modify the socialist orientation of our economic planning;

we declared our irrevocable commitment to the attainment

of socialism as the most humane and just system for our

society.

7. The concept of non-alignment in international relations

is to us, as an Arab country, conscious of the historic unity

and destiny of the Arab people, endowed with a positive

element. We do not stand in the middle of the road,

maintaining a position of neutrality between the imperialist

camp and the socialist countries. There can be no such

neutrality for us.

8. We, therefore, stand united with the progressive and

revolutionary forces, not only in the Arab world, but also

in the world at large, acting in full awareness of the role

that these forces can play in working for the happiness and

prosperity of mankind. Among such forces we count the

Palestine revolutionary movement whose struggle we are

pledged to support by every means at our disposal,

mobilizing our resources and our people for the cause of

the liberation of Palestine.

9. It follows from this commitment that our relations with

other States have been redefined in accordance with their

attitude towards that issue. Thus we have recognized and

applauded the courageous stand of the German Democratic

Republic, which has given full recognition and support to

the Palestine liberation movement. Thus we have recognized

and applauded the support of the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea, which has declared its solidarity

with the people of Palestine in their struggle for

national liberation.

10. The revolutionary Government of the Democratic

Republic of the Sudan has accorded full diplomatic

recognition to those Governments and maintains with them

the closest and most cordial relations, ever conscious of the

fact that the unity of the progressive forces of the world

will eventually triumph over the forces of darkness and

reaction.

11. Thus we come to the United Nations, to this Assembly,

as one of its smaller Members, perhaps less endowed

than many others in terms of economic development, but

confident in our belief that it is by our own effort and

sacrifice that we can achieve the goals that we have set for

ourselves. We come to the United Nations in hope but

without illusions, since we, like many others of our

continent of Africa and of the Arab world, have experienced

too many setbacks and disappointments to harbour

any illusions. We have witnessed, only too often, the failure

of the United Nations to uphold the values and principles

of its Charter. We have observed with dismay the progressive

stultification of United Nations endeavours in the

maintenance and preservation of peace and the frustration

of its efforts for multilateral economic co-operation.

12. However, the reasons for the failure of this Organization

to be an effective instrument for peace and progress

are not far to seek. We have no doubt that the failure of

this Organization is due to a large extent to the tendency of

the imperialist Powers to use the United Nations as an

instrument of their policies. This abuse has inevitably led to

the decline in the prestige of the Organization and to a

severe limitation of its capabilities and resources and has

engendered a lack of confidence in its effectiveness.

13. The failure of the Organization to solve the situation

in the Middle East is not of recent origin; and it will

continue to plague this Organization so long as it persists in

ignoring the essential nature of the question of Palestine.

The struggle that the Palestinians and the Arabs have been

engaged in is a struggle of the indigenous population against

alien domination.

14. Zionist propaganda often relates its title to the land of

Palestine to a legendary domicile, going back to biblical

times. It is an incontestable historical fact, however, that

for 3,000 years—prior to 1948—Palestine had not been once

under Jewish administration. There have always been Jews

in Palestine, but they represented only 9 per cent of the

population by 1918.

15. During the time of the partition, when Israel acquired

by force of arms an area two-thirds in excess of the area

assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution,

there were still more Arabs than Jews in Palestine. This

clearly represented an intolerable situation for the Zionists,

who coveted the land of the Arabs in order to establish the

Zionist State—rooted in the concept of racial exclusiveness

and intolerance. The people of Palestine were evacuated

through campaigns of unmitigated terror and atrocity, and

the homes and lands of the Palestinians were usurped by

immigrants from Europe who had no better claim to the

land than a worshipper in the Kowloon Mosque of Hong

Kong could have to Mecca.

16. Thus it was estimated, as late as 1954, that 350 out of

40O Jewish settlements were established on lands that had

belonged to Palestinians who subsequently became refugees—

those refugees that the United Nations has reaffirmed,

year after year for over two decades, should be repatriated

or adequately compensated. Those are the people who have

the undeniable right to the land of Palestine. Those are the

people that the United Nations has abandoned to the

Zionist aggressors.

17. The Foreign Minister of Israel is certainly not serious

in trying to base a claim to Arab land on historical

considerations going back 3,000 years—that is, to

1,000 B.C. He is certainly not so naive as to try to reshape

the map of the world into the form it had in 1,000 B.C. If

he really thinks that that is a basis for his claim; if he

considers that any people that have been where they are for

less than 3,000 years can be dislodged with impunity, then

surely the Foreign Minister of Israel would not only lose

the rostrum from which he has been displaying his

eloquence, but he would be looking in vain in this part of

the world for the limitless military, monetary and moral

support by which a people of only 2 million have been

encouraged to defy a nation of 100 million.

18. The question, therefore, is essentially related to the

continued existence of the Palestinians as a people and their

right to struggle by every means in order to maintain their

national identity and uphold their inherent right to stay in

their homeland. No State, no international organization,

can deny them that right or ask them to disperse, or for

ever live on the charity of others, as refugees.

19. The Zionist leaders have often suggested that the

Arabs were belligerent because they challenged the right of

Israel to exist within secure and recognized boundaries; as if

the existence of Israel was not based on the dispersal of the

Palestinians; as if the boundaries of Israel were not

extended through aggression and forceful occupation.

20. The Foreign Minister of Israel has often derided the

Declaration of the Arab Summit Conference held at

Khartoum from 29 August to 1 September 1967 as

signifying bad faith and intransigence on the part of the

Arabs because it set forth the determination of the Arab

nation not to recognize or negotiate with Israel or surrender

the rights of the people of Palestine to their homeland.

21. Let me proclaim from this rostrum that this remains

the Arab position. It has not changed; nor will the twenty

years of the Israeli usurpation of Palestine or subsequent

Israeli conquests endow Israel with any rights whatsoever.

The Arab States were right—and within their rights—to

declare at Khartoum on 1 September 1967 that their basic

commitment and conviction entailed non-recognition of

Israel, no negotiation with Israel and no surrender of the

rights of the people of Palestine.

22. The Israeli leaders have since indicated that they

intend to retain Arab territory occupied since June 1967.

As recently as June last, Moshe Dayan proclaimed:

“This is our homeland and if I say homeland I mean

also Nablus and Jericho.... We consider the Golan

Heights part of Israel.... We must treat the Palestinians

living on the West Bank as a government treats its

citizens. They will be our citizens for a very long time.”

The Foreign Minister of Israel, who maintained in his

address to this Assembly on 19 September [1757th

meeting] that there was nothing which was not negotiable,

expressed a different and contradictory position to the

Knesset when he said, in reply to a parliamentary question

on 12 May 1969:

“Three demands which Israel will not waive are a

permanent presence at Sharm El Sheik, a unified Jerusalem...

and a Golan Heights for ever out of Syrian hands.”

It appears, therefore, that Mr. Eban has a different mantle

for every occasion, since his statement in the Knesset

excludes Sharm El Sheik, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights

in no uncertain terms from even the possibility of negotiation.

23. In the face of his strong affirmation regarding the need

for negotiations between the Arabs and the Israelis, one

might indeed ask the Foreign Minister of Israel whether he

does or does not consider himself or his State bound by the

resolutions of his party congress regarding the permanent

retention by Israel of the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and

a considerable part of the eastern and southern Sinai

Peninsula. If he does consider himself bound by these

resolutions, how is it possible for him to maintain that

there is nothing that is not negotiable between Israel and

the Arabs? How does he want us to believe that he or his

State can wriggle out of the resolutions in the drafting of

which he himself took a major part?

24. The Palestinians have demonstrated that they do not

wish to be colonized by Israel, and they have a right, like

every colonial people, to wage a war of liberation against

colonial domination by Israel. They aspire to live as a free

people in a free Palestine.

25. The people of Palestine envision a country unlike

present-day Israel, which is a colony of aliens supported by

world Zionism and nurtured by the United States of

America and its imperialist satellites. The Palestinians

entertain no claim of racial exclusiveness. They do not

envisage a State based on any single religion or faith. The

Palestinians see the Palestine of the future as a State the

citizens of which are equal, without regard to race or

religion; a State in which the Jewish community would be

given the right to live as equal citizens, as they had always

lived amongst the Arabs, free from that abominable state of

persecution to which they had been subjected in Europe

throughout the ages.

26. If this position is construed as being incompatible with

the existence of the state of Israel, the fault lies with the

State of Israel, which was established by an act of illegality

fostered through aggression and unlawful occupation, a

State in which the Arabs are treated as second-class citizens

who are made to pay for sins that they never committed.

27. The Palestinian struggle is directed towards the

achievement of a free and democratic State that does not

exclude the Jews of Palestine. This surely is an endeavour

that is worthy of support, not only by the Arabs but by the

United Nations itself. It is a sad reflection on this

Organization that it has not seen fit to view this dispute in

its proper perspective, in order to be able to discharge its

primary responsibility in bringing about a just and lasting

peace in the Middle East.

28. The President of the United States of America

declared on 27 January 1969 that he considered the Middle

East “a powder-keg”’ that needed to be defused, He stated

that he was “open to any suggestion that may cool it off

and reduce the possibility of another explosion”. Yet, we

have witnessed during the last few months that the

Government of the United States has bent every effort to

support the Israeli position of continued occupation and

provocation, even to the extent of supporting its defiance

of the resolutions of the Security Council and the General

Assembly of the United Nations.

29. In major declarations of policy on the Middle East

issue, four successive Presidents of the United States have

pledged that their country would defend the right of every

State in the area to peace and security and the maintenance

of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

30. The United States has not fulfilled that pledge. Its

commitment has been one of unreserved support for Israeli

aggression. Its commitment has been just one-sided. At the

beginning of the present administration, it was proclaimed

that a more even-handed policy would be followed by the

Government of the United States on this issue, but in actual

fact, this has been the period when Israel was enabled by

the United States to maintain and even extend its aggression.

The territorial integrity of all States that the United

States Presidents have pledged to uphold is being violated,

with the active help of the Government of the United

States, in the Israeli occupation of the Arab lands.

31. In this connexion, it is interesting to consider that

over the past twenty years the volume of economic aid,

both private and public, that has flowed from the United

States into the Israeli coffers exceeded a total of $4,000

million, or about $1,200 for every one of the citizens of

Israel.

32. Further, in the conditions that prevail in the United

States of America, where the Zionists wield such an

inordinate influence in business and government circles, the

attempt at the adoption of an even-handed policy towards

both the Zionist State and the Arabs was bound to come to

grief.

33. Mr. David Nes of the State Department, in an address

delivered on 18 April 1969 at the Conference on World

Affairs of the University of Colorado, entitled “Our Middle

East Involvement”, revealed the extent of this influence. He

stated that 20 per cent of key positions in the State

Department were held by Jews, most of them presumably

sympathetic to the Israeli position.

34. Professor Willard Oxtoby of the University of Yale

described the genesis and conditions of the commitment of

the Government of the United States to Israeli policies in

the following terms:

“In this country, any question of Israel’s right to exist,

or of her actions today in any field, is immediately

targeted as anti-Semitism... anything short of total

commitment to the rightness of Israel’s cause is interpreted

as anti-Semitism.... In our country, this a

characterization which I would say, certainly in government,

is considered far worse than being a communist.”

35. In these conditions it is idle to suppose that the Arab

cause, no matter how just, would receive the support of the

United States Government. This has been demonstrated

time and again, during the last two decades.

36. We heard the President of the United States proclaim

from this rostrum last Thursday, 18 September, that the

Security Council resolution of 22 November 1967 “charts

the way to that settlement” [1755th meeting, para. 64].

Our understanding of that resolution differs from that of

the President of the United States. We consider a resolution

of the Security Council not as a working paper but as a

solemn decision that requires implementation, especially in

conditions where the threat to the peace is so palpable. We

expect the United States of America, which is a major

Power and a permanent member of the Security Council, to

bring its prestige and influence to bear so that the

dangerous situation in the Middle East does not develop

into what President Nixon, in his statement of January

1969, feared would be ”a major explosion” that could very

well involve “a confrontation between the nuclear Powers”.

37. The President of the United States in his speech before

this Assembly on 18 September 1969 [1755th meeting]

stated: that in case of failure to reach agreement on a

settlement in the. Middle Hast. the great Powers should

endeavour to contain the conflict by limiting the supply of

arms to the belligerents. Yet the. United States, through its

delivery of the Phantom jets and other weapons of

aggression to Israel, has helped to spur rather than deter the

armaments race in the area. The seriousness of that action

will be fully realized when we consider that Israel has

nuclear capability based-on nuclear reactors such as that at

Demona, which is capable of producing enough plutonium

for the manufacture of several nuclear weapons. It is an

open secret that Israel possesses this.capability as well as

the means of delivery.

38. We have no doubt the ultimate purpose of Israel’s

nuclear capability, nor do the Israelis themselves leave any

room for doubt in the matter, since they have rejected the

application of the International Atomic Energy Agency

safeguards system and have not accepted the agreement on

the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

39. The suggestion by the President of the United States

for arms limitation, if Security Council resolution

242 (1967) providing for the withdrawal of Israel is not

implemented, amounts to an endorsement: of the Israeli

position and a sanction of its continued occupation of the

Arab land in contravention of the Charter of the United

Nations and specific resolutions of the Security Council. It

did not come as a surprise to us that that should be the

position of the United States on this issue, since it is part of

the declared policy of the United States that‘Israel should

maintain a clear superiority in armaments over the Arabs.

The suggestion that there should now be some arms

limitation convinces us that the United States is now

assured that it has provided Israel with the means of

maintaining that superiority.

40. Let me say that we reject that suggestion that

seeks to impose on the Arabs a permanent position of

inferiority and subservience.

41. We, as a part of the Arab nation, are convinced that

our struggle against the colonial occupation of Palestine by

the Zionists will be long and arduous. The United States, in

supporting injustice and upholding usurpation has irrevocably

identified itself with the immorality of the Israeli

occupation. Ultimately, it will be the loser since the Arabs

are inexorably moving towards the full attainment of their

inalienable right to live in freedom in the Arab homeland;

and while the United States supports the cause of foreign

domination and reaction, the Arabs have come to realize

that their destiny lies in the solidarity of the progressive

forces in the Arab nation supported by all the peace-loving

countries of the world.

42. Let it be clear to the Government and people of the

United States of America that the policy pursued by the

Unites States Government in the Middle East can lead to

nothing but the alienation of the Arab people. The United

State Government has maintained some traditional friendships

with certain ruling circles in the Arab world in the

mistaken belief that such a course of action is sufficient to

give it that grip over affairs that is necessary for the

protection of American interests in the Middle East.

43. Let there be no misapprehension about the fact that

such a course of action is pregnant with considerable

dangers to those very interests that the United States

Government seeks to safeguard. The Arab peoples everywhere

do not have any illusions about this. It is for the

United States to choose between amity with a nation of

100 million in an area of great strategic importance and

animosity to that nation. It is for the United States to

choose between a foreign policy dictated purely by

domestic considerations and one pursued in conformity

with the exigencies of foreign realities.

44. Finally, we reject the implication in the policy

declaration of the President of the United States before this

Assembly when he said: “We are convinced that peace

cannot be achieved on the basis of substantial alterations in

the map of the Middle East” [1755th meeting, para. 65].

Let us sound the warning here that peace cannot be

achieved on the basis of any alterations in the map of the

Middle East: to maintain a position that contradicts this is

to contravene the provisions of Security Council resolution

242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, which calls for the

complete withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the occupied

areas. To maintain a position that Israel should extend its

territory in the Arab lands that it now occupies is to

support the contention that armed conquest is capable of

supporting rights or concessions. It is regrettable that the

President of the United States should hold the position that

the map of the Middle East has to be modified in order to

appease Israeli ambitions. It is lamentable that he saw fit to

declare this before the Assembly.

45. For some years now the United States has been

fighting a brutal war in Viet-Nam. The United States has

committed more of its armed forces to that war than it did

in Korea, more in fact than it has done in any other war,

except the two world wars. The number of United States

troops and their allies, before the recent token withdrawal,

represented a numerical superiority of men under arms of

the order of seven to one. The allied forces of aggression in

South Viet-Nam have had, in addition to overwhelming

numerical superiority, a superiority in fire-power, excluding

the B-52 operations, amounting to about one hundred to

one. It has been reliably estimated that the superiority of

the allies over the Viet-Namese patriots in helicopter-transport

facilities, in communications and electronics, has

amounted to about one thousand to one.

46. It becomes obvious, therefore, that in this context the

recent withdrawals of United States troops dwindle to

insignificance and do not in themselves warrant any

response from the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam or the

National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam. American

troop reduction does not represent a reduction of military

activity or an abatement in the bombing and destruction

that the heroic people of Viet-Nam have endured all these

long years.

47. The President of the United States declared before this

Assembly on 18 September 1969 that what the United

States wanted for Viet-Nam was not important--what was

important was what the Viet-Namese themselves wanted.

He declared that the South Viet-Namese had “the basic

right to determine their... future” without “outside”

intervention [1755th meeting, para. 54].

48. Coming from the President of the major Power that is

intervening now in South Viet-Nam that is indeed an

amazingly ironic statement. One fails to comprehend the

logic that permits the Americans to accept that the

activities of the South Viet-Namese Liberation Front, even

if aided by the North Viet-Namese, can be considered as

unjustifiable foreign intervention, while the American

military machine, aided by Australian, South Korean, New

Zealand, Thai and Filipino forces, can legitimately and

justifiably bring death and destruction to the poor people

of Viet-Nam. If we are to exclude foreign interference we

must recognize that it is the interference of the United

States that must come to an end. It is the interference of

the United States which is hindering the Viet-Namese from

determining their own future.

49. The President of the United States tells us that: “the

people of Viet-Nam, North and South alike, have demonstrated

heroism enough to last a century” [ibid., para. 61].

Let me say that they have demonstrated that heroism

mostly in their relentless struggle against American domination.

They certainly now deserve to live in peace. Let the

United States unconditionally withdraw its troops so that

the Viet-Namese may live in peace. The land is theirs and

they ought to be masters of their own destiny.

50. It is ironic that the President of the United States

should state without qualification that his country has not

turned away from the world. Some of us cannot help but

wish that it had. Some of us cannot but feel that the world

would be a better place if it were free of American orbiting

spies in the sky, tree of their intelligence ships, free of their

military bases, their loaded aid, and the pervasive machinations

of the Central Intelligence Agency—free, in short. of

all the devices and intrigues that United States imperialism

has been employing to impose its will on the world in the

name of “freedom”. It is curious that the brand of freedom

advocated by the United States is always espoused by

leaders who are discredited in their own countries, and

embraced by reactionaries and quislings—men who have had

a history of dishonest collaboration with foreign Powers

occupying their countries. That is certainly the case in

South Viet-Nam and is true of the Chung Hee Park régime

in South Korea; it is certainly the case in many other parts

of the world.

51. In South Korea the United States has supported its

presence by advancing the palpably false claim that its

armed forces are there to deter aggression. It should be

obvious that that is a bogus claim, since it is the very

presence of foreign troops in South Korea that has been the

major source of tension in the area, The incursions of the

American spy-ships and airplanes into the territory of the

Democratic Republic of Korea have sometimes been deliberately

provoked in order to see, as one observer put it,

how other side reacts. The case of the spy-ship Pueblo is

too recent and too well known to need any comment.

Major-General Gilbert H. Woodward even signed a written

confession on behalf of the United States Government on

23 December 1968, admitting guilt for that inexcusable

infringement of the sovereignty of another State.

52. It is, however, a matter of great concern that the

United States presence in South Korea is justified in the

name of the United Nations; it is regrettable that the

United Nations should tolerate this abuse of its name.

53. Yet one is heartened and encouraged to see that in

Viet-Nam and in Korea, as well as in the Middle East, the

tide is turning and the era of imperialist domination is

constantly receding. One would wish that the United

Nations had played an active role in bringing to an end this

unhappy state of affairs. The United Nations, having grown

out of the pain and turmoil of the Second World War, out

of the fight against fascism, should have continued to be an

Organization that united all the forces that had fought

against oppression and injustice. Yet this was not to be, in

spite of the awareness that in order to be able “to save

succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, “... we

are expected”-in the words of the late Secretary-General

Dag Hammarskjöld —“to succeed where our predecessors

failed”.

54. We in the Sudan believe that the United Nations is

capable of such achievement. We also believe that in the

world of today, which is characterized by fundamental and

rapid changes in the relationships of nations and peoples

having different cultures and social systems, our efforts

should be geared towards transforming the United Nations

into a universal organ capable of drawing together the

multifarious interests of humanity in general, and act

towards allowing it to deteriorate into an instrument of

policy for those who already wield too much power and

exert unlimited influence.

55. It is our conviction that only the achievement of true

universality can save this Organization from falling victim

to its own shortcomings. We cannot conceive of the

realization of that universality without the restoration of

the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the

United Nations. The case of the restoration of the lawful

rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United

Nations is based on considerations of historical fact, of legal

right, and of a correct appraisal of the political realities of

our present world.

56. The Government that succeeded to the treaty obligations

of the Charter of the United Nations after the

establishment of the Organization was the Government of

the People’s Republic of China, and not the Government of

Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan, The Government that ought to

assume the privileged position and obligations of a great

Power is the Government that is now in effective control of

almost 4 million square miles of the land mass of Asia,

inhabited by one fourth of the total of the world

population. it is therefore not only in furtherance of the

dignity and prestige of this Organization that the People’s

Republic of China should assume its lawful rights of

membership, but also in the interests of humanity. This is

now especially true since the People’s Republic of China is

one of the five nuclear Powers of the world.

57. The United Nations can continue to ignore China only

at its own risk and peril. Furthermore, the admission of

China to the United Nations will not only be a source of

strength to the Organization but will also herald the

admission of other countries that have an effective impact

on world affairs but that still remain outside the United

Nations. No country is too unimportant to make a

contribution to the work of this Organization. To attempt

to exclude certain countries can be motivated only by

factors that have nothing to do with the good of mankind

or the effectiveness of the United Nations. The Secretary-General

has recently reiterated the thesis first put forward

in the introduction to his annual report last year in

support of true universality and emphasizing the need for

the divided countries to take part in the work of the United

Nations. The case of the German Democratic Republic,

with its great industrial potential and capability of assisting

in the area of multilateral economic aid, may well be cited

in illustration of this point. This Organization cannot

continue to ignore the existence of the German Democratic

Republic and the contribution that it is capable of making

towards the enhancement of the effectiveness and prestige

of this Organization.

58. We believe that the realization of prosperity on a wide

scale and the attainment of peace and freedom for the

people of the world everywhere are closely connected. We

in the Sudan have realized that as Africans our freedom and

independence will remain incomplete as long as parts of the

African continent remain under colonial domination.

59. In the three African Territories of Angola, Mozambique

and Guinea (Bissau), Portugal continues its domination

of the African inhabitants. Portugal has over 60,000

soldiers in Africa engaged in the brutal suppression of

movements for national liberation of the African inhabitants.

The war waged by Portugal against the people in

those three African Territories is a conflict that constitutes

a real threat to peace and security in the area.

60. It will be recalled that frequently in recent months the

military forces of Portugal have crossed the borders of

independent African States, on the assumption that they

have a right of pursuit. They have thus infringed upon and

violated the sovereignty of those countries, whose response

has often been quick and immediate. Yet the incursions

continue,

61. Portugal stands condemned before the United Nations

family and before world public opinion for its defiance of

the United Nations resolutions and for its refusal to accept

the universal principle of the right of peoples to self-determination

and independence—a principle enshrined in the

United Nations Charter and in the Declaration on the

Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and

Peoples [resolution 1514 (XV)]. The continued defiance of

this principle and the persistence in ignoring resolutions of

the United Nations should alert this Organization to the

need for more resolute action in support of the real forces

that will bring the downfall of Portuguese colonialism in

Africa. I refer to the forces of the African liberation

movements in those Territories.

62. The tragedy of Rhodesia continues to unfold in a

manner similar to the Palestine tragedy. Like the Zionists,

the white minority in Southern Rhodesia are appropriating

the land and depriving the indigenous people of Zimbabwe

of their birthright to their homeland. As a result of the

hesitant policy of the United Kingdom, the United Nations

has been forced to resort to measures which have continued

to be inappropriate and inadequate to deal with the

situation.

63. Before the unilateral declaration of independence, the

United Kingdom had challenged the competence of the

United Nations to deal with the situation in Rhodesia, but

once the unilateral declaration of independence was announced

Britain sought the help of the United Nations. The

United Kingdom did not heed the appeals of the Afro-Asians

to act promptly and to deal effectively with the

rebellion through the use of force The United Kingdom

resisted even the idea of using force and embarked on a

series of abortive negotiations with the rebels before

resorting to the ineffective application of economic sanctions.

64. While economic sanctions have failed to topple the

Smith régime, the fascist Rhodesian front is proceeding

with the enforcement of a system of apartheid more

repugnant than the South African system, having severed all

links with Britain and declaring that the country would

become a republic with a proposed racist constitution

depriving the African population of their fundamental

human rights and conferring title to half the land upon

5 per cent of the population—that is, the white minority.

65. We consider that the only effective solution of the

Rhodesian question short of the immediate use of force to

end the rebellion is the imposition of mandatory sanctions

on the whole of southern Africa. However, Britain has

made it quite clear that it is not ready to use force nor

ready to agree to a total embargo for political, legal and

economic reasons, and insists, together with its Western

allies, that the United Nations should pursue the present

course of action of denying recognition and maintaining

sanctions against the illegal régime. To us, the present

course is unacceptable because it is deceitful and ineffective.

66. It did not come as a surprise to us that while the

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United

Kingdom as recently as yesterday [1759th meeting], was

warning the Members of this Assembly against unrealistic

proposals and precipitous action concerning the situation in

Southern Rhodesia, there was jubilation in the white racist

circles in Salisbury on the return of the United States

Consul-General to his post, which is interpreted, according

to The New York Times of yesterday, 22 September 1969,

”as a small token of American approval”. The action taken

by the United States and the interpretation of that action

in Salisbury is more important and more significant than

the pious hopes expressed by the United Kingdom.

67. Again, it is left to the people of Zimbabwe to intensify

its struggle for freedom; and again, the United Nations will

have a clear obligation, in accordance with its Charter

resolutions, to give that people all possible assistance. We in

the Sudan are pledged to give the peoples of Zimbabwe all

the assistance necessary to enable it to attain its right of

self-determination and independence.

68. The African population in South Africa continues to

live under the inhuman system of apartheid instituted by

the minority racist régime of Pretoria, which stands

condemned by all the world for the pursuance of policies

that are contrary to all standards of decency and justice.

The General Assembly, the specialized agencies and the

Security Council have repeatedly condemned the policies of

apartheid of South Africa. Yet all our pleas and exhortations

have fallen on deaf ears. Indeed, there has been an

intensification of these policies and an extension of their

application to other territories. Both Namibia and Southern

Rhodesia are now in the grip of this repugnant system.

69. The situation in Namibia remains unchanged; the

Government of South Africa illegally continues to administer

the territory and consolidate its control further by

implementing measures leading to the integration of the

territory into the system of apartheid, in contravention of

United Nations resolutions. The authorities of Pretoria are

enacting legislation leading to the dismemberment of the

territory by the creation of sixteen Bantustans, leaving the

rich and more developed part of Namibia under the control

of the white minority while the indigenous population lives

in transit camps and native reserves. Over eighty-one

resolutions adopted by the United Nations on the territory

have been met with total disregard by the South African

Government. The South African authorities’ refusal to

comply with United Nations resolutions rendered the

United Nations Council for Namibia powerless. The Government

of South Africa is carrying out a war of genocide

and repression against the Namibians. Its inhuman treatment

of the captured Namibians, who had been resisting

the illegal South African authorities, is contrary to all

accepted standards applicable to prisoners.

70. The United Nations has declared the presence of

South Africa in Namibia illegal, has condemned South

Africa for not complying with United Nations resolutions

and has affirmed the territorial integrity of the territory.

But since condemnation has been without result, the

United Nations must now proceed to adopt appropriate

steps to deal with the South African refusal to comply with

the provisions of its resolutions.

71. It is our unshakable belief that the traditional notion

”let him who desires peace prepare for war” is inconceivable

in the era of nuclear weapons. The total destruction of

mankind that may be caused by nuclear war makes such a

war differ from a conventional conflict not only in kind but

also and most seriously in scale. It is now well established in

amply documented evidence that even those who survived

the immediate destruction of a nuclear war would be

exposed to radio-active contamination, while the future

generations would suffer different and grave disabilities.

72. It is discouraging to note that while the progress in

disarmament has been very slow, nuclear technology has

proceeded at a formidable pace and is now within the reach

of a growing number of countries.

73. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Weapons [resolution 2373 (XXII)/ has been a significant

landmark on the path towards achieving complete disarmament.

We sincerely hope that this Treaty will open a new

chapter in disarmament negotiations and will inspire members

of the enlarged Conference of the Committee on

Disarmament to direct their efforts towards achieving

concrete and effective measures for arms control.

74. My Government fully endorses the resolutions and the

Declaration of the Conference of Non-Nuclear-Weapon

States, dealing with questions of universal peace—in

particular, the security of non-nuclear-weapon States, cessation

of the nuclear arms race, general and complete

disarmament and the exploration of the means of harnessing

nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes. That is

an area in which the United Nations can achieve a great

measure of success. Let us hope that it will not be deterred

from pursuing that end. Let us hope that in the area of

peaceful reconstruction and development the United Nations

will be able to fulfil the promise of its early years.

75. The oppressed people of the world will not be

completely free unless they shake off the stranglehold of

neo-colonialism—the major oppressive force of our day.

Direct colonial rule has now all but disappeared from the

face of the earth. Since 1945 over sixty countries of Asia,

Africa and the Caribbean, inhabited by over one third of

mankind—have become independent. This has been the era

of the great dawn of freedom all over the world.

76. But the imperialist Powers were not willing to allow

freedom to see the light of day. They resorted to all

available means to suppress it. In many cases they drew up

the constitutions of the newly independent countries and

built up the leaders to whom they were to hand over the

reins of power. They instituted regional organizations

through which they exercised great influence in order to

safeguard their interests, and they made absolutely certain

of the dependence of the economies of the newly independent

countries on their own. That has been the insidious

and dangerous work of neo-colonialism since the end of the

last war.

77. The economies of many independent countries have

been infiltrated by the agencies of capitalist exploitation in

such a way that it has become difficult for those countries

to envisage a future where they can achieve any measure of

self-sufficiency.

78. The fallacy that the developed countries should

concentrate on the manufacture of industrial goods while

the developing or under-developed countries should devote

their labour to extractive industries and raw materials seems

to have taken hold to such an extent that it has become an

accepted tenet of national economic planning in some

countries.

79. The machinery of capitalist foreign aid has been used

extensively to further these neo-colonialist aims and to

foster a state of future dependence for a number of years to

come. In this connexion one must mention the unprincipled

use of economic aid as one of the weapons of Zionist

infiltration into Africa.

80. It is true that on the political level many of the leaders

reared by the colonial Powers who failed to live up to the

aspirations of their people were overthrown and replaced

by others who were more responsive to the needs of their

countries and the national aspirations of their people. Yet,

wherever the people were not vigilant, the agents of

neo-colonialism have been active in the other direction,

foisting decadent and corrupt leadership upon the people

and engineering the overthrow of progressive governments

in order to install régimes sympathetic to the neo-colonialist

aims.

81. The methods which these agencies, such as the Central

Intelligence Agency, follow in the realization of their

despicable aims include all kinds of subterfuge, such as

incitement to riot, strikes and assassinations. To strengthen

its hold over such countries, neo-colonialism has directed its

attention mainly to the sources of information and instituted

broadcasting stations, libraries and scholarships

wherever its agents have had the chance to do so.

82. On the strategic level, the forces of neo-colonialism

have military bases and aggressive alliances that encircle the

globe in the name of collective security. This is the extent

of the danger that the emergent countries of the third

world have had to face.

83. Yet there is hope—hope that people everywhere will

awaken to this danger and combat the rapacity of the

imperialists and their new weapons of oppression. There is

hope that the inherent weakness of neo-colonialism will

lead to its final end as the inherent weaknesses of capitalism

bring about its downfall. This hope will be realized when

the countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the

Caribbean recognize that the interests of their peoples are

best served by their marching together, alongside the

democratic forces all over the world, towards freeing

themselves from the shackles of neo-colunialism; when they

realize that the only way to attain real independence and

true freedom for their people is through being united.

84. Only in their unity is there hope.