A/40/PV.13 General Assembly
This afternoon the Assembly
will hear an address by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania.
Mwalirnu Julius K. Nyerere i President of the United Republic of Tanzania~ was
escorted into the General Assembly Hall.
On behalf of the General
Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the united Nations the President of the
united Republic of Tanzania, His Excellency Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere, and to
invite him to address the General Assembly.
President UYERERE: On behalf of the Government and the people of the
united Republic of Tanzania, I wish to congratulate you, Sir, on your election as
President of the General Assembly during this fortieth anniversary session of our
Organization. I offer my very best wishes for a session which, as we all hope,
will, under your leadership, contribute substantially to world peace and justice.
Tanzania attaches very great importance to the united Nations and to our
membership of this Organization. As we hav~ always understood it, the United
Nations was created as a result, and also became an expression, of the spirit of
internationalism engendered by the lessons of the 1939-1945 war, and of the
economic misery and instability which had preceded it; for the establishment of the
United Nations and its institutions was inspired by a recognition that peace and
war, poverty and instability were world issues requiring the co-operation of all
peoples and all nations. The United Nations and its agencies were thus based on
the philosophy that all nations had equal rights and duties, although there were
reservations as regards the Security Council and some of the specialized agencies.
In an important sense the United Nations grew more truly internationalist
during its firet 2S years. For the underlying internationalism which then
irresistible demands of colonial peoples for freedom and justice - had the result
of gradually increasing the member&hip of this Organization. Prom a membership of
SO nations in 1945, ~e have grown to 159. This Assembly is now really
representative of the world.
As such, the General Assembly does in practice have the ·automatic majority·
which its detractors sometimes complain about. Its majority is compost.'Ci of
representatives of nations which are poor and underdeveloPed - and mostly members
of the Non-Aligned Movement.
The effect on this body is similar to that within 8 parliament when votes are
extended to more and more citizens until there is adult sUffrage. The interests of
the majority - the poorer or less-educated citizens - then have to be taken into
account by an elected Government unless it embarks upon an authoritarian policy of
systematic repression. The General Assembly has become the world forum - the only
world forum - where the poor and underdeveloPed can contribute their ideas and
express their interests; where, in other words, some elment of the philosophy of
democracy finds expre~sion internationally. A change in the structure of the
General Assembly would thus be an attack .both on internationalism and on the
validity of the very idea of the legal ~quality of nations.
Por that majority is not effective in the Security Council, where the
permanent membership and veto power of five United Nations Members was, from the
beginning, a concession to the reality of military and economic power - that is, to
the power balance which existed in 1945. Put more kindly, the veto was a
recognition of the special responsibilities for upholding peace which inevitably
fall upon the strong if peace is to prevail in the world. Whether the permanent
membership does in fact in all cases still re~resent the reality of world power
centres is highly questionableJ but that is not a matter about which I intend to
speak today.
But, in any case, as the Secretary-General again points out in his extremely
admirable report to the United Nations this year, the United Nations is not a world
Government. No nation has, by joining it, surrendered any of its sovereignty.
The ability of the United Nations to carry out the internationalist purposes
for which it was established therefore depends primarily upon the attitudes and
policies of its Member States, and particula~ly upon those of the veto Powers. And
Tanzania is becoming very concerned about the decreasing internationalism in the
attitudes and policies of some very powerful Members of our Organization, and the
consequent weakening of the whole United Nations system.
Perhaps the most blatant example - and I can only give a few of many
examples - of internati~nal authoritarianism is the growing practice of threatening
adverse consequences to small nations which use their United Nations votes in a
manner displeasing to a strong Power. We know from experience that this has been
happening privately for some time. But now even the sense of propriety has gone;
small and poor countries are being publicly threatened that they will be punished
if they do not vote in accordance with the wishes of a Member of this Organization.
What are we supposed to do when the super-Powers vote against our interests?
Twenty-eight resolutions on matters of great importance to Tanzania were considered
in the thirty-ninth session of the General Assembly. They were mostly concerned
with African or colonial questions and the law of the sea. One was passed by
consensus; the United States of America voted against 17 of them and abstained on
10. Are we then expected to regard that United Nations Member as an enemy? Or are
we to accept its assurances that its disagreement is the result of its own
(President Nyerere)
judgement on the issues and does not indicate any lack of friendship towards us?
And if - as we have until now done - we are to do the latter, f/hat exempts the big
Powers from the same obligation?
For nations as for individuals, poverty is itself degrading enough. Do we
have to add to it, by attempts to exploit the fact of poverty to deprive the weak
and the poor of the only thing which they have - their human dignity and
self-respect?
I am mindful of the Secretary-Generalis appeal to us to avoid divisive
rhetoric in this Assembly. But I must reassert the right of all United Nations
Members to speak and to vote in accordance with their own judgement, albeit that
the judgement of all of us is affected by our own interests. TO belittle that
right is to threaten the whole structure of international co-operation; it is
derogatory to the dignity of the United Nations, and of our separate States.
We were colonies once; we are no longer colonies. And, speaking for Tanzania,
we refuse to bec~~e a neo-colony of any country under the sun. We third-world
countries did not win our independence - in Tanzania's case, with the help of the
United Nations system - in order to sell it to the highest bidder, nor even to buy
off trouble by voting in the General Assembly at the behest of a veto Power. We
will use the only right our weakness leaves to us - the right to scream a protest
at international authoritarianism and bullying.
My second example of international authoritarianism relates directly to the
future existence of humanity. Matters related to nuclear weapons and their
testing, above all other sUbjects, should ~ discussed and settled on the basis of
the common interest of all peoples.
The partial test ban Treaty of 1963 represent~d an advance for
internationalism. Since then there has just be~n the Non-Proliferation Treaty of
1970. It is highly questionable whether it has stopped any non-nuclear Power - a
signatory or otherwise - from developing a nuclear weapons .capacity if it would
otherwise have done so, it has certainly not stopped a continued and massive growth
in the number, the size and the variety of nuclear weapons in the hands of the five
nuclear Powers.
,
On the contrary~ now we even have the Strategic Defence Initiative - the
threat to take nuclear and laser beam war into space. This matter is ~"\ot e~'en
brought to t.'l~ Unit~d N&ticns or a."ly ot.~er world organizetion fo! discussion. Yet
space belongs to all of us - if it can belong to anyone.
Some of us did feel encouraged by the Soviet Union's announcement of a
moratorium on nuclear testing. The stated period was short, but the action itself
represented a challenge for peace inatead of for war. Yet the response of the
other super-Power was to say that thts was mere propaganda, and the Soviet Union
could watch That Power's own forthcoming nuclear tests. If it was propaganda,
surely the answer for anyone who cares about peace is more effective propaganda.
Let the United States challenge the Soviet Union to c.ccept a lWch longer
moratorium. What is the use of watching nuclear tests? What humanity needs is an
end to all nuclear-weapon testing everywhere.
If all tests stop, the development of new weapons becomes much more
difficult. Weapons which may not work, or which may blow up those using them, are
less attractive to any army, air force or navy. A comprehensive test ban would
thus at least slow down the arms race and provide time for the negotiation and
organization of nuclear disarmament. It is possible that verification of adherence
to such a treaty may not yet be 100 per cent perfect, but modern technology could
certainly monitor nuclear explosions very much smaller than the ones which
devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let us do what can be done, and create an
incentive to perfect the instruments of verification.
Movement in that direction would transform ~~e present international climate
of mutual suspicion and hostility. Even now I appeal for a new start. I join w'~th
other United Nations Members in urgiLg that the planned meeting of the duper-Power
leaders should provide real and joint leaderhip for peace in accordance with the
original aims of the United Nations.
I now turn to southern Africa. In 15'78, after long negotiations, Security
Council resolution 435 (1978) was adopted with the active support of the Western
bloc naUons, without an)' dissenting votes. It laid down tJ.;e basis for a peaceful
tranaition to the independence of Namibia under the auspices of the United
N~tions. Despite quite heroic ef~orts by the Secretary-General, that resolution
has not been implemented. On the contrary, since 1981 it has been effectively
blocked by the policy of linking Namibian independence with the withdrawal of Cuban
troops from Angola. This policy of -linkage- was initiated, and is still backed
by the United States of America.
Angola has tri~ very hard to find some formula which would uphold its right
to defend itself against attack with the aid of allies chosen by itself, and which
would at the same time avoid political embarrassli'lent fot the current American
adnlinis tr~tion. The only effective resu! t has been renewed a ttacks on Ar\9ola by
South Africa - which in fact never withdrew all its troops from that country - and
a renewed threat by the United States to support dissidents trying to overthrow the
Government of Angola.
Thus, once again, we have a veto Power acting in such a way as to undermine
the United Nations - and in this case even on a decision which it took an active
part in promoting. As a result, South Africa remains in Namibia, attacks Angola
and other neighbours with impunity, and is able to mock the verbal condemnation
with which it is assailed.
For all of us verbally condemn the apartheid system which is at the root of
Sou th Africa's refusal to end its occupation of Namibia and of its a ttacks on its
other neighbours. But we have not been able to use the machinery available in the
Charter to deal with this atrocity and its danger to world peace. This despite the
fact that aP!rth~ in South Africa is based on the same doctrines of racial
superiority as nazism, which the authors of apartheid supported. Even the violence
(President Nyerere)
against the people of SOuth Africa during the last 18 months has led only to a
Security Council resolution - adopted with some notable abstentions but at least no
veto - encouraging nations to take unilateral actions against SOuth Africa.
Surely no one can be happy at the situation in South Africa now - neither the
allies of the apartheid State nor its enemies. There is too much suffering and too
much chaos. The temptation to powerful nations to see their own interests as being
involved and thus to spread the conflagration is increasing too fast.
For the people of South Africa have protested against apartheid, have
demonstrated, been arrested, tortured and died, year after year. And despite a few
incidents of sabotage, the intensified struggle is still basically that of an
unarmed people rejecting apartheid angrily and courageously. They are rejecting it
with their blood, fighting bullets with stones and the sheer force of numbers.
They no longer seem to care about dying. And they are no longer interested in
concessions or reforms announced by a white Government. So apa~theid is clearly
doomed, and the longer it takes to come to an end, the greater will be the misery
and the more devastating the chaos.
The United Nations must act now. It is essential that concerted international
action should help the local people bring down apar theid quickly. The time for
mere warnings has passed.
Mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VIr of the
Charter is the minimum action required of this Organization. They are merited on
three counts: first, SOuth Africa's defiance of the United Nations over Namibia~
secondly, its constant and continuing direct and indirect attacks on its
independent neighbours; thirdly, the indignity, the slavery, the violence and the
dangers to world peace which are inherent in its policy of organized racism - a
er ime aga inst humanity.
(President Nyerere)
The problems of southern Africa have developed to their present dangerous
condition because there has been a failure to act internationally at an early
stage. But int:he sphere of international economics there has been a clear
regzession from the internationalism which created the United Nations.
By 1945 it appeared that the world had learned the economic lessons of the
1920s and 1930s. It was thus for hard-headed reasons, as well as r'2newed feelings
of human solidarity, that the Bretton WOOds institutions and other United Nations
specialized agencies were created to work with and alongside the Economic and
Social Council of the United Natiofls.
(President Nyerere)
The declared purpose of the entire system was the well-being and prosperity of
all nations, based on increased inte~national co-operation and trade, and a
reduction of poverty, ignorance and disease ~~roughout the globe. Inevitably, the
institutions were not always well-targeted 6 sufficient in scope, or sufficiently
adaptable for the tasks given to them, but they were there, to be improved and
extended according to experience.
And the system was extended, with the International Development Association
(lOA), the United Nations COnference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNlDO) and the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) being created during the 1960s, and the International
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) as late as 1977. As another reflection of
internationalism, in 1960 the General Assembly adopted a target of 0.7 per cent of
gross national product to be allocated by the richer and more developed Members to
the war against world poverty. Not all nations committed themselves to this
target; indeed, quite spurious reasons were advanced by some nations for not doing
so. But the majority of the developed nations did accept that target.
Unfortunately, a new orthodoxy, backed up by economic power, has in the last
five or six years increasingly ignored the fact that the world's current economic
problems arise from rapid technological advance, and the inadequacy and assymetry
of the international structures previously established. SO instead of further
international co-operation, and an intensified attack on the problems of poverty,
we have a return to the monetarism and the economic nationalist insularity of the
19206 and 1930s.
Attempts were made, and work was even begun, on dealing with the increasingly
obvious world economic problems through international negotiation. In 1974, the
General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Establishment of a New
(President Nyerere)
International Economic Order. At the thirty-fourth session in 1979, the Assembly
decided to launch global and sustained negotiations on international economic
co-operetion for development, with the fi:st report of the C~~ittea of the Whole
to be submitted to the 1980 special sessiQn~
By then attitudes had changed. We had that special session, it achieved
nothing, not even agreement on procedures, a time-framer or even an agenda. Then
in 1981, we had the cancun meeting in Mexico, designed, in the wake of the Brandt
COmmission report, to search out a basis for negotia'tions. The canoun meeting
achieved nothing. And since then it has proved impossible even to ge~ talks about
talks about global negotiations. The major developed countries, led by the United
States, have blocked all progress. They are not even willing to consider ~he facts
of poverty and its interrelationship with the present international eco~omic
system, world poverty has been pushed off the international agenda.
Instead, we see tilt:. !.ew anti-internationalist climate reflected in the actions
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This institution is now little more than
an instrument used by the wealthiest and most powerful nations for the
international enforcement of their own economic policies on the under-developed
countr~es of the wcrld.
The attempt to use the World Bank system in the samt way has not had complete
success, although some Member States have been denied access to its funds for what
can only be described as ideological reasons. But we have seen a decreasing
allocation of funds for the International Development Association (IDA). Not only
has the total amount of official development assistance dropped as a percentage of
nations' gross national product, the aid which is being given is increasingly
allocated bilaterally, so that it can more easily be used for the political
purposes of the donors.
(President Nyerere)
In the light of these developments, it is not surprising that the
international financial system is again threatened with collapse as a result of the
immense - and now frequently unpayable - debts of under-developed countries. But
still the problem is not being dealt with co-operatively and internationally.
Instead, creditors as a group insist upon dealing with each debtor individually,
and squeezing the maximum amount from it regardless of the health of its people, or
its stability and future development. Simultaneousl~, the developed countries
increasingly take refuge from their own problems in some form of protectionism,
thus making it ever more difficult for debtors to earn the foreign exchange with
which to meet their revised commitments.
Ther~ are, however, some nations whose debts are so large that they could on
their own jeopardize the international banking system. These countries have the
power of their own debt with which to protect themselves - if they are politically
strong enough to withstand the combined economic and political pressures of their
creditors and the IMF. But· no African country is in that position, although
Africa's debts are larger as a propo~~ion of its national income than those of any
other are~. Consequently we have the ludicrous position that billions of dollars
are exported from Africa in servicing high-interest debts, billions more are
exported from Africa, lost through a deterioration of the terms of trade of primary
commodity exporters, and African States beg for food to prevent their people from
starving:
Africa has called for an international conference to deal with its debt
problem. SO tar the response has not been very encouraging. That request runs
counter to the strong movement away from internationalism.
We see the same attitudes being applied to those United Nations specialized
agencies which have a governing structure based on the equality of nations.
I
(President Nyerere)
Nations withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) becaus~ they do not like some of its decisions. They
downgrade their representation at UNCTAD and UNIDO conferences. The financing of
IPAD cannot be agreed despite all the lectu~es read to impoverished Africa about
the importance of agriculture end.the small farmer.
All the world's Governments know - or ought to know - where the doctrine
-might le right- can lead h~anity. Th~ unity and indivisibility of the world has
now been seen from space. It is experienced by all nations and all peoples, ev.en
those who do not understand it. The only solution to the world's problems is
international co-operation, with its recognition of our CQmmon humanity and
interdependence.
I make this appeal: for our common benefit, and the benefit of each one of
us, let us act towards each other with humility, not arrogance, recognizing that
none of us knows all the answers to the ~anifold problems facing us. Let us resume
our earlier course - the course we began to follow 40 years ago when the united
Nations was established - and together search out a path to justice and prosperity
for all. It will be difficult, and we shall argue a lot. But it can be done if we
respect each other and each other's freedom.
(President Nyerere)
In this i my last address to the General Assembly, I have described events and
trends and needs as we in Tanzania perceive them. My country will not stop saying
those things when the new President takes over. For we are a poor and
underdeveloped country, and we have no power in the world except the power of
speech given by the Assembly - and by our humanity. To be silent when we see
danger, to refrain from attacking policies which we see as contrary to the
interests of peace and justice, would be to surrender our freedom and our digntty.
That we shall never do.
On behalf of the General
Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the United Republic of Tanzania for the
important statement he has just made.
Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere, President of the united RepubliC of Tanzania, was
escor ted from the Ganeta1 Assembly Hall.