S/PV.1028 Security Council

1 believe that 1 am voicing the sentiments of all the members of the Council when 1 say that they wish to express to the Secretary- General their great regret and to ask him to convey to the family of the late Under-Secretary their deepest sympathy. 5. Ml'. FEDORENKO (UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics) (translatedfrom Russian) :Ml'. Secretary-General and members of the Council, we have lost a colleague and friend who was very close and dear to us; my 6. Ml'. Kiselev entered the diplomatic service in 1937. His outstanding abilities as a Soviet diplomat soon became apparent. In the various responsible diplomatic posts he held in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and abroad, he discharged his duties in the implementation of our peace-loving foreign policy steadfastly, scrupulously and honourably. He served as Consul-General of the Soviet UnionatKoenigsberg, Consul-General at New York, political adviser to the USSR High Commissioner of the AlUed Control Commission in Austria, and political representative of the USSR to the Government of Austria. In 1948- 1949 he \Vas in charge of the Balkan Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; in 1949-1954, Ambassadol' of the Soviet Union to the Hungarian People's Republic; in 1954-1955, Director of the Protocol Division of the Ministryof Foreign Affairs; in 1955- 1959, Ambassador of the USSR to the United Arab Republic and simultaneously in 1956-1959, he represented the USSR in Yemen; and in 1959-1962 he was Director of the Near Eastern Division ofthe Ministry. From March of last year Evgeny Dimitrievich occupied the responsible post of Under-Secretary for Political and Security Council Affairs in the United Nations Secretariat. 7. EvgellY Dimitrievich Kiselev was well known in many countries as an active proponent of a policy of peace and friendship among nations. The United Nations knew him as an outstanding member of the staff, a man of noble spirit and great talents. His shining memory will always linger in our hearts. 8. l wish to thank you, Ml'. Secretary-General and members of the Council, for your words ofcondôlence and sympathy on this grievous loss. They will bè conveyed to the Soviet Government and to the family of Evgeny Dimitrievich Kiselev. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. Letter dated 10 April 1963 from the Chargé d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Senegal addressed to the President of the Security Council (5/5279 and Corr.l) 9. The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the decision taken yesterday and with the consent of the Council 10•. The PRESIDENT: l should like to inform the Cowlcil that the President has received requests from the Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) and from the Republic of Gabon to be heard in connexion with the question now on our agenda [S/5286 and S/5288]. The Council may wish to defer its decision on these requests until the appropriate stage of our discussions. Should the Council agree to grant these . requests, l shall ask the representativesoftheRepublic of the Congo (Brazzaville) and of the Republic of Gabon to make their statements at that time. 11. Ml'. FEDORENKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The Soviet delegation would like to express its view on this matter. If the representatives of the Congo (Brazzaville) and other States have asked to be heard, it seems to us that we are entitled to deal with their requests and hear them, to proceed as they have asked. We therefore support the request. 12. The PRESIDENT: This, of course, is a matter for the Council to decide. The Chair suggests that they be heard at the proper stage, after the members of the Council have had an opportwùty to express their opinions. That is why l say that the Council might like to defer the decision. However, shoul~ the Council like to make its decision now, l will of course calI upon them to make their statements at the appropriate time. 13. Ml'. QUAISON-SACKEY (Ghana): l suppose that what is here concerned is a question of procedure. Normally, according to rule 37 of our provisional rules of procedure, once a Member country has requested permission to speak before the Security Council without a vote, a decision is taken promptly and the representative of such a Member is allowed to be seated either at the Council table or somewhere else waiting to be called upon to speak. 14. In my view, there is no objection from any member of the Council, and therefore there is no reason why a decision should not be taken now that they be al10wed to participate in the Council's proceedings without a vote. It is only when there is opposition that a decision on the matter needtake place. This is my view of the matter. 15. Ml'. STEVENSON (UnitedStatesofAmerica):Ihad not intended to intervene in this little matter, but l feel, in view of what has been said here, that those of us who have doubts about the application of rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedureshould express them at this time. For my part, l doubt whether the provisions of rule 37 are now properly applicable to the request of the representatives of Gabon and the Congo (Brazzaville) to participate in our discussion of this issue. Rule 37 is quite precise in that the Council may invite non-members to participate when the Council considers that the interests of such non-memhers are specially affected-that is the language. This rule has been consistently interpreted, if l am not mistaken, quite strictly by the Council. 16. Sil' Pab.'ick DEAN (United Kingdom): 1 am bOWld to say that 1 shal'e the view which has just been expressed by tlle representative of the United States reglu'ding the invitation to representatives of Governments not represented on tlle Council. The relevant rule in om' provisional rules of procedm'e, rule 37, is quite clear and, Witll the permission of the President, 1 shall read it: "Any Membel' of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security CowlCil may be invited, as the result of a decision of tlle Security Council, to pal'ticipate, witllOut vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Cowlcil when the Security Cotmcil considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected, or when a Member brings a matter to tl1e attention of the Security Council in accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Chal'ter." 17. In the view of my delegation, we ought to adhere to the rules tmless there is sorne very strong reason fol' not doing so. My delegation attaches great importance to tlùs principle, and we believe it to be in the true interests of tl1e Security Council and of the United Nations generally that the clear provisions of this rule should be respected. Nevertl1eless, in courtesy to the representatives of the Congo (Brazzaville) and Gabon, if the Council decides to invite them, 1 should not wish to press my objection to their presence on this occasion. 18. Ml'. MUTUC (Philippines): The delegation of the Philippines is inclined to support the view expressed by the representatives of the United States and the Ulùted Kingdom. Reference has been made to rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council. 1 believe that rule 37 is but an implementation of Article 31 of the basic Charter of the United Nations, which reads as follows: "Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the 8ecurity Council whenever the latter considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected. ft 20. Ml'. SEYDOUX (France) (translatedfrom French): If 1 understood our colleague. the representative of the United States, correctly. he pointed out that if the terms of rule 37 of our provisional rules of procedure were to be interpreted strictly. we might reject requests to take part in the debate by delegations which are not represented in the Council. He aiso considers. however, that in view of the small number of delegations that have made such a request to us. the Council might authorize Congo (Brazzaville) and Gabon to take part. without vote. in our discusssions. 21. This position seems reasonable to me. and for my part 1 should be willing to associate myself with such a decision by the Counci!. 22. Ml'. BENHIMA (Morocco) (translated from French): The letters in which the representatives of Gabon and of Congo (Brazzaville) have asked the Council to authorize them to take part in the present debate appear to us to be scrupulously in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. The reservations that have been expressed regarding such participation unfortunately seem to us to prejudge the extent to wlùch the interests of these two countries would be affected by the question under discussion. Furthermore. a restrictive interpretation of rule 37 would be inconsistent with the interpretations of this rule which have already been given in the Council and which have led to several precedents-some of which are still very recent-allowing, in identical circumstances. for representatives of countries which are in the best position to evaluate the interests at stake to be authorized first to take a seat among us, and then to take the floor for the purpose of expounding the considerations that have prompted their intervention. 23. 1 trust that on the occasion of this debate no objections will be raised such as would. for the first time. constitute a very restrictive reading of rule 37• the more so since the two countries that have asked 'for permission to speak are a priori allies and friends of Senegal. and it seems logical that this question should be of concern to two African countries having especially close ties with Senega!. 24. While taking note of the concern expressed by various delegations regarding the possible disruption of our work if this right were to be granted to a large number of delegations, my delegation considers that the Council could confirm its previous decisions by refraining at this juncture from adopting arestrictive 26. In the light of the stàtements that have been made, 1 assume that there is no objectionby the COÙIlCU to our acceding to the rèquest of the representatives of Congo (Brazzaville) and Gabon to participate in the discussion. If there is no objection, 1 shall invite those representatives to make their statements at ~leap:propriatetime. Itwas so decjded. 27,.' Ml'. GARIN (Portugal): Would youbegoodenough, Ml'. President, to allow me to make a very short statement at tlùs time-provided, of course, thatthel'e isno objection on the ,part of members of the Council? 28. The PRESIDENT: Does the repl'esentative of POl'tugal Wish tospeak on the matter that the Council ha~ just bèen discussing? 29. Mr~ GARIN (portugal): 1 wish to make a short statement pn the decision just taken by the Council. 30.MJi. QUAISON-~ACKEY(Ghana) :1have tlle lûghest l'egard for Ule representative of Portugal. but tlûs is a prcicedUl'al question and. since he is not a member of the Council, 1 wonder whether he can take part in thé discussion. ai. Tlie PRESIDENT: Perhaps therepresentativé or Portugal could defer lûs statement to another time. 32. Ml'. GARIN (Portugal): It W<.l.S not, OfcoUl'se, my intention to, take part in the discussion of tlùsmattèr. Pl... decisi~n has beentakèn by the Council, and 1 merely' requeste'd permission to make a ,short statement on thatdecision.However, if thel'e is any obJection on the'part of members of thé COurlcil and if the Councll ~l'efers, 1 shall1I1ake the statement at, anothe,r stage.

1 think that that wbuld be preferable. 1 now call· on the representative of Senegal. 34. .tWl:: CISSE DIA (Senegal) (translatedfrom French): Firs~ of àll, the GOvernment' of Senegal joins lù,deploring the bereàvement wlûch oÙ!' Org~i7.,')t,ion has just su:f:fered. The death of Mr.• Kiselev. t~· ,. Under- Secretary for Political and Security'Council Affairs, is.a heavy blow for the lVIembers of the United Nations. 1 wish to associate my delegation with the moving tribute that has been paid to lûm in this hall. 35. Yesterday evening the representative of Portugal gave us proof-if any suchproof wereneedèd--of ms great intellectual ability and of lûs skill in interpreting facts which, in reality, are damning for lûs Govermnent. Perhaps, though, this skill is ~ue to the unenviable fact' that he' is 'accustomed. to finding himself in. the dark in tlùs Assembly and to defending a cause that is condemned by the international conscience. Perhaps, also, whatever seemed élever and skilful in the statement by the Ambassador of Portugal is in rea:lity accounted for entirely by the absence of any specific arguments and by the weakness of Portugal's position. 37. In fact, however, this is only a stratagem. We might perhaps have allowed ourselves to be led astray and to believe that Portuguese policy had taken a new turn, had we not been mindful of the attitùde of defiance and contempt, hardened by impunity, that portugal has always displayed towards our Organization, and had we not been aware that Portugal is relinquishlng none of its absurd principles,principles that stand in flagrant contradiction with the provisions of that very Charter with which the Portuguese representative has maliciously attempted to confound us. In fact, Portugal is using the.Charter onlyas a means of achieving its own ends, as an instrument with which to attack the adversary and fry to catch him unawares. For the Portugueserepresentative, the Charter is only a means of self-defence, the pUrpose of which ismerely to bolster his procedural argument;but when it comes to complying with the Charter, to respecting it, to making it the basis of one's ideology and of one's relations with the international community, weIl then, Portugal no longer sets any store by it., 38. The members of the Counci! are aware that this accusation i8 not unfounded. In numerous resolutions the General Assembly and the 8ecurity COW1Ci! have taken note of the fact that Portugal has violated the Charter and have rejected Portugal'8 African policy as being inconsistent with the spirit that pervades the work of our Organization. And yet it is this very same Portugal that the Council has heard deploring our alleged undue haste in submitting so-called "trivial charges" to it, whereas-i::Io the Portuguese representative says-we should have entered into contact with Lisbon, either directly through our respective consuls, or indirectly through the goodoffices of our mutualfriends. 39. The members of the Council will not have failed to discern the weakness of such an argument; they are too weIl acquainted with the history of our relations with Portugal to be impressed, even for a moment, by such an allegation. The Government of 8enegal has done everything thatwas humanly possible to preserve its relations with Portugal on a footing of good-neighbourliness, if only for the benefit of our brothers who are still living underportuguese rule. After the incidents that took place in 1961 and early in 1962 we attempted, on the advice of the 8ecurity Council, to settle our disputes by negotiation, but we have been forced to acknowledge the fact that no negotiation with portugal is possible. The very basis for a discussion is lacking. Lisbon denies everything and rejects aU complaints and accusations categorically, without studying them. Paragraph 2of document 8/5281 of 11 April 1963 affords irrefutable proof of 41. The Government of Senegal was provided with clear proof of the futility of any contact with Lisbon. not one week or one month but only a single day after the violation of 8 April which provides the grO\mct for our current complaints. Indeed. my colleague the Minister of the Interior and 1hadscarcely arl'ived at the scene of the incident for the purpose of carrying out a thorough investigation when once again a portuguese military aircraft flew over our national territory before our very eyes. Of course the members of the Council know why it is impossible to carry on any kind of negotiation with Lisbon; they also know why Portugal is making one attempt after another to intimidate us. 42. At the root of tills matter-and tms must be stressed and restressed-there is Portugal's African poUcy. a policy which. in common with virtually all the African States and the progressive forces in the world, we whole-he~tedly condemn and categorically repudiate. Better still. wehaveveryfirmlyandclearly stated our determination to oppose tms poUcy-which is founded on racial discrimination. upon principles that do violence to the international conscience and to the fundamental human rights that our Organization has described as sacrosanct and inalienable-to the bitter end. That is what Portugal cannot forgive the Government of Senegal for having done. That is why portugal cannot forgive the African States. portugal is so clearly aware of our determination to see that an end is put to its inhuman poUcy and to its retrograde view of history that it refuses any kind of discussion and takes refuge in demonstrations of force. as we h..ave just stressed. Of course. the members of the Council are sufficiently well acquainted with portugal's policy to be awa.re of the impossibility of entering into any kind of negotiations or of resorting to mediatiol'l.. Senegal therefore had no alternative but to appeal to the Security Council. before which it had already repeatedly laid Us complaints. 43. The Portuguese representative has moreover attempted to sow confusion in the minds of members by suggesting that the complaint of the Government of Senegal is a flimsy one and that that Government has not been able accurately to establish either the date of the events or the nature of the fragments gathered at the Scene of the incident. But the skill of the Portuguese representative is too well known for us not to be forewarned. We have too often seen him desperately confronting the many Members of our Organization who are avowed anti-colonialists. not to know that he would try ta take advantage of 50. Once more, Senegal does not share the point of view of the portuguese Government. As far as we are concerned, these are not mere trilles, but serious incidents fraught with grave consequences which take on a peculiar signliicance when they are placed in their true context. Portugal's unpopularity in Airica, particularly in that very country which, by an unjusilliable aberration, it considers to be an Integral part of its national territory, is an open secret. In the statement he made yesterday the Permanent Representative of Senegal referred to the state of tension that portugal is fostering in our frontier area, and the incident with which the Council is dealing today is but one episode in portugal's campaign of intimidation. 51. What really happened on 8April 1963?On 8 April, at 8 o'clock in the morning, Portuguese military aircraft flew over and bombed the Senegalese village of Bouniak, situated 3 kilometres from the frontier, killing one person, destroying several houses and causing panic among the inhabitants. In thatconnexïon 1 have in my possession, at the disposaI of this Council, some sta,tements in evidence which the members of the Council must have among their documents. 52. The reason for this aggression is to he sought in the abandonment of the Portuguese village of Bouniak by its inhabitlm'ts, who have gone in a body to settle in the Senegalese village of Bouniak, where they have found peace and affe,ction. The portuguese authorities have not forgiven the ctiefs of the Portuguese village of Bouniak for taking refuge in 8enegalese Bouniak. With utter disregard for international law and for the principle that the sovereignty of other States must he respected, the Portuguese authorities have been concerned only with punishïng the "fugitives. And yet the Portuguese representative has accused the Government of 8enegalof seizingon trivial incidents as an excuse for joining in the anti-Portuguese propaganda which agitators-so he saysare spreading in Africa. This "trivial incident" is, of course, nothing less than a flagrant violation of our air space, accompanied by the bonibing of our "territory; and as for the so-called agitators, they are none other than the Governments of the independent African states which have freed themselves from the hateful yoke of colonialism and are striving to make the whole of Africa independent and sovereign. Obviously, we do not speak the same language as the portuguese representative,- since he refers to these events, which concern us so intimately, as "trivial". 53. ÀS a result of the exaggerated efforts that it is making to stem or eventoarrestthe tide of history, in a word, to retain thepeoples that it administers under the fearful shadow of colonialism, Portugal's 54. lt is not the fault of the Senegalese Government if the natives of so-called Portuguese Guinea are unable to tolerate the treatment that is meted out ta them in their own country through the senseless application of a barbarous policy which the whole of Africa, of sovereign and independent Africa, to put it plainly of Africa redeemed, rejects with scorn. 55. Nor ls it the fault of the Government of Senegal if the natives of so-called Portuguese Guinea look upon our country as a land of peace where they will find solidarity and support. The Government ofSen<:lgal is proud that these refugees, knowing that on the other side of the frontier a people having the same ethnic origin. speaking the same language and living in dignity ~nd peace, will welcome them with open arms, should thus appeal to our spirit of fraternity and solidarity. 56. We shaH not revert to the question of the soundness of the Senegalese Government's complaint. The Permanent Representative of Senegal has established this point most clearly. In order ta become convinced of H, it is necessary only. to analyse the communiquê issued by Lisbon which demes that any Portuguese aircraft took to the air on the day of the incident, whereas the communiquê issued by the Bissau Government states that only air exercises were carried out in the frontier area. Needless to say, these exercises consisted in bombing Senegalese territory. Nothing could be better calculated to bring out the truth and to establish beyond doubt the soundness of our complaint than the striking contradiction between these two Port'.\guese commumquês. 57. We come now to the mollifying part of the Portuguese representative's statement which is intended to turn aside our wrath and indignation and to blunt our conviction· of the futility of attempting any negotiation with his Government, which has violated its solemn undertaking to respect our sovereignty. 58. We must go further still and express our astonishment that the portuguese representative should have in all seriousness thought fit to preach us a sermon about the principles which should preside over good-neighbourly relations between states. 59. The Council will not have failed to note that he was referring mainly to our own efforts towards that end. It is true thatthe breaking-off of ourdiplomatic relations was not followed by an interruption of our consular relations. The Government of Senegal was careful to leave the door open for negotiation with a view to removing certain difficulties for the greater good of the African pop'~lationof so-called Portuguese Guinea"Senega~has maintainedits consular relations despit'e the increasing number of incidents of which we are complàining and which represent so many repercussions cf Lisbon's colonial policy•. 60. The rep,resentative of Portugal cited the ideas of President Senghor which, he said, underlie Sene;' gal's ,international conduct. This ideology strongly :~avours the dialogue, the African palaver and negot~ation, and considers that there is no dispute, so 65. The portuguese Governrnent has tao long laboured under the dangerously erroneous impression that the friends on whom it relies are so powerful that they will be able to confront and preserve it from the righteous wrath of the United Nations. 66. Senegal staunchly believes that the trust it has placed in the justice of the international community will not be disappointed and that the Security Council, which has shown proof of its devotion to international peace, as it is called upon to do under the United Nations Charter, will help us torestore peace and tranquillity along our frontier with so-called Portuguese Guinea, by expressing its disapproval of Portugal's policy and persuading that country to display a better understanding. of the principles governing relations between neighbouring States. 6'1. Mr. QUAlSON-SACKEY (Ghana): The delegation of Ghana has learned with great grief of the passing of Mr. Evgeny D. Kiselev, who for about a year served us as Under-Secretary for Political and Security Council Affairs. Those of us who knew himpersonally were impressed by his amiable manner and his warm friendship. He worked arduously and diligently in 68. May 1 also take this opportunity of welcoming Ml'. Fedorenko, the new representative of the Soviet Union, who has now taken his place at the Council table. 69. Permit me to associate the delegation of Ghana with the warm expressions of welcome which have been extended to the representatives of Norway. Morocco, Brazil and the Philippines. 1 fully share the view that their presence here will make a tremendous impact on the work of the Security Council. 70. For me, personally, it il;! gratifying to see on my left flank my distinguished colleague from Morocco. Ghana and Morocco have always shared a close identity of views on African and other world problems, and 1 regard the presence of the Ambassador, who has always been a strong advocate of just causes, as infinitely providential. 71. It is also with a great sense of gratification that 1 welcome, on behalf of the Government of Ghana, the representative of the Philippines. Ghana shares a common cause with the Philippines, whose contributions in the Afro-Asian group and in the General Assembly have been tremendous. 72. As for the representative of Norway, 1 have known him for nearly four years, and 1 can say here that he comes to the Council with a great fund of experience and liberalism. His service on this Council cannot but elÙlance the stature of this august body. It is needless for me to remind aU of us here of the debt the United Nations owes to Norway,whoseworthy son, Ml'. Trygve Lie, became the first Secretary- General during the formative and crucial period of our Organization. It is the conviction of my delegation that Norway's impressive record of.liberalism, its enlightened approach to world problems, and its proverbial Scandinavianhumanitarianismwill be enhanced by Norway's representative on this Council. 73. And what shall 1 say about the distinguished representative of Brazil? Even before he could be formally inducted as a new member of this Council, Ml'. Carvalho Silos distinguished himself last month as an able president of the Council, but then he possesses evidently great qualities whichhave impressed all who have worked very closely with him in the Organization. What is more, he comes from the great country of Brazil, a former portuguese colony, that has acquired over the years an enviable prestige among the nations of the worId as a multiracial society without racial bias, for which it must justly be proud. This, coupled with its previous two terms of membership of the Security Council in 1946-1947 and 1951-1952, is a sure evidence of mature experience which cannot easily be ignored, especially in the present case before the Council. 74. The delegation of Ghana looks forward to a greater collaboration with our new colleagues in tackling the immense problems which bedevil the peace of the worId. 76. Yesterday. my delegation listened attentively to the Senegalese case pl'esented by the Permanent Representative of Senegal. He rested his case on three main points. First, that there have been repeated violations by Portugal of Senegalese territory and that, taking advice from friends, the Government of Senegal sought "a direct arrangement with Portugal ••• unfortunately, however •.• despite the soleron undertakings made by the portuguese Government at that time, similar incidents have occurred which are even more serious". 77. Secondly. the representative of Senegal emphasized the present state of tension in the region of so-called portuguese Guinea andSenega!. This tension is due to the harrassment and terrorizing of African nationalistsin so-called Portuguese.Guinea who are fighting against Portugal for independence. The Portuguese colonial army, true to its record in our Africa. has beeu fighting the Africans with modern weapons. Such conflict was bound to have repercussions in the neighbouring territories of Senegal and Guinea. The Portuguese are no doubt suppressing the nationalist front. using every means available, including espionage. As the representative of Senegal put U. "there is a network of espionage on our territory which is operated by the portuguese". 78. The third major point made by the Senegalese delegation was that these provocative aets and incidents ~y Portugal are creating at the present time between Senegal and the so-called Portuguese Guinea "a storm~charged atmosphere which might explode in an armed conflict. which would be a real threat to international peace and security.since we are not alone •••". The Council should take note of the emphasis on the threat to international peace and security. 79. On Us part, the delegation of Portugal has made an effort to counter the charges of Senegal. In his letter to the President of the SecurUy Council dated 10 April [S/5281], the Permanent Representative of Portugal reproduced,a, statement denying the Senega- "1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. shaU, first of aIl, seek a solution by negotiation. inquiry, mediation. conciliation, arbitration, judiciaJ. settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements. or other peaceful means of their own choice. "2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary. caU upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means. " 81, Thirdly, that the damageinvolvedinthecomplaint of Senegal was insignificant. because only a villager was slightly injured and a mudhut demolished. To quote the representative of Portugal. "really. this is the kind of damage that could be caused by a minor thunderstorm". Fourthly. that the complaintof Senegal was in reality a conspiracy against Portugal. To quote the representative of Portugal again. "there are very genuine and positive grounds for my Government's belief that the roots of this hostility on the part of the Government of Senegal lie outside that country". 82. My delegation has thus analysed and examined the statements made before this COWlcil, and l must sayat once in defence of the Security Council that our meeting is very regular and very important. Acc<;>rding to Article 35 of the Charter, any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute or any situation which might leac\ to international friction or give rise to a dispute to the attention of the Security COWlcil or, for that matter, of the General Assembly. The delegation of Ghana, therefore. supports the contention that there is a threat to internationalpeace and security due to the incidents complained of by Senegal. 83. It must also be said that the Governrru?nt of Senegal, according to its submissions. had already tried ta settle bilaterally with Portugal the problems confronting Senegal. in th~_t part of West Africa. In any case. Senegal broke diplomatie relations with Portugal in 1961. and there is no.questionto negotiate with Portugal because the violations of Senegalese territory by Portugal stem from the existence of the Portugueise colony of so-called portuguese Guinea. There is no dispute so far between Senegal and Portugal, but there is a dispute between Africa and Portugal. Africa has a palaver with Portugal, and the whole of Africa cannot resort to Article 33 in terms of the Charter to negotiate with Portugal. The only recourse the African States have is to come ta 85. It was when Portugal abused the good faith of Senegal by fighting against Mrican nationalists in socaUed Portug;uese Guinea and by committing atrocities in Mrican viUages that the Government of Senegal refused to have truck with Portugal. l must repeat here in this Council that the Government and the people of Ghana, and for that matter l am sure of Senegal, do not hate other people, whether theyare Portuguese, or French, or Belgian. What we hate is colonial domination and we hate the portuguese colonial system intensely. The Portuguese people can remain our friends if they abolish their enclaves in independent Mrica, because the existence of these enclaves gives rise to cases like the one the Government of SÈmegal has brought before the Council. 86. My submission, therefore, is that the complaint of Senegal is the complaint of aU Mrica. The incidents of which the Government of Senegal has complained must have real significance to members of this Council because they are not at aU trivial. 87. To the African States, these provocative and arrogant displays of force by Portugal in so-caUed Portuguese' Guinea and ill Senegal and other parts of Mrica are of serious concern. No one here can deny that the Portuguese octopus is stretching its clammy tentacles to menace the peace and security of African States bordering the so-caUed Portuguese territories. The strafing of the Senegalese frontier village of Bouniak is just one example of such incidents which may one day flare up into a general conflagration in Africa, if nothing is done to check them now. 88. Therefore, considered in terms of material damage and casualties, one may be tempted to laugh off this incident as a mere storm in a teacup as, in fact, the representative of Portugal did yesterday. But a thief is a thief, whether he stole one dollar or $1 million. l wish to submit with aU the emphasis at my command that this is not a mere frontier incident of the type we are aU familial'. with, neither i5 it a mere question of territorial claim. There is a state of tension on the frontiers between Senegal, Guinea and the so-caUed Portuguese Guinea. The sa1ne can be said of other areas in Africa where Portugal has not yet emerged from the dark and musty cloisters of the Middle Ages, and still holds down in abject slavery and misery thousands of our Mrican brothers and sisters. 89. My delegation does not view this complaint by Senegal in isolation. To us it is a veritable part of the whole revolting question of Portuguese colonialism in Africa against which aIl true lovers of African emancipation have pledged themselves to fight to the 91. The danger in Africa today is that these "holy wars" by Portugal to suppress African nationalism are definitely having their repercussions in neighbouring States where artificial boundaries cut across peoples of the same ethnic groups. So long as these repressive measures continue and people are forced to flee across ill-defined and unguarded frontiers to seek refuge in neighbouring territories, so long the threat to peace in Africa will continue and will definitely spill over into other parts of the world. 92. Portugal and her friends have stubbornlyrefused to admit that these iniquitous measures against nationalist movements constitute a threat to peace and security in Afrï'Ja. Will they continue to cling to this untenable argument now that Portugal is using arms supplied by her "big brothers" to menace the peace and security of African states? 93. It is a fact that today Portugal is at the moment vigorously and violently suppressing the five Guinean nationalist groups, namely, the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and the Cape Verdes; the Movement for the Liberation of Guinea and Cape Verdes; the Movement for the Liberation of Guinea and the Islands of Cape Verdej the Movement for the Liberation of Guineaj and the African Democratic Rally. 94. Mr. James Duffy clearly spelled out thepotential danger resulting from Portuguese inept he.ndling of the nationalist movements when he stated in his booklet Portugal's African Territories: Present Realities,li and l quote: "The nature of Portugal's domestic government with aIl of its dictatorial tendencies has precluded the more usual African pattern of movement toward independence-that is, a political struggle in a colonial or metropolïtan capital against a central colonial authority. Hence the headquarters of revolutionary groups are not in Luanda, Lourenço Marques, Bissau, or Lisbon, but in Leopoldville, Conakry, and London." 95. It is difficult to foresee the ultimate effect of this state of affairs. One fact, however, stands out clearly, that African States cannot indefinitely remain impassive spectators of these wanton destructions of lives and properties being perpetrated against their kith and kin to maintain an outmoded hegemony. li Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York, 1962. 97. What then is the solution?To my delegation it is very simple. Portugal should take a leaf out of the book of her friends and gradually disengage herself from these so-called territories. Portugal must heed the cries of these people for independence, total independènce and self-determination. That is the only rational solution to the whole question of Portuguese menace in Aftica and to the problem Senegal has brought to the Council. 98. But Portugal, whose record of flagrant and contemptuous disregard of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions remains unsurpassed in the annals of this Organization, continues to defy world opinion. The latest addition to this catalogue is the fIat refusaI to co-operate with the Committee of 24Y and the peremptory rejection of an invitation from the Chairman of the Committee to assist in solving the problem of decolonization by receiving a delegation in Lisbon to discuss Portugal's colonies. 99. This matter has been referred to the Security Council. l wish to take the opportunity at this stage to serve notice ,that Ghana in concert with other Africanstates will in due course bringthe whole question of Portuguese presence in Africa before the Security Council, which has been requested by operative paragraph 8 of General Assembly resolution 1807 (XVII) "to take aIl appropriate measures to secure the.compliance of Portugal with its obligations as a Member State". 100. Meanwhile, the Council should address itself to the task of finding an acceptable solution to the complaint of Senegal now before it. Whatever measure theCouncil decides to take mustbeeffectivein putting an end to such intermittent provocations, and assure the people of Senegal that they will no longer be subject to threats to their peace andsecurity. The Portuguese military build-up in Africa should be liquidated forthwith. As l said here on 14 March 1961, when we were discussing Angola, "... continental pride 11 Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Deciaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and. Peoples. 102. Today it is Senegal which is complaining of Portuguese violations, tomorrow it will be Guinea or Congo (Leopoldville) or Congo (Brazzaville) or Gabon. It is in the light of our submission today that the delegation of Ghana will consider any draft resolution placed before the Councn. 103. Ml'. FEDORENKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Allow me first to express my gratitude to the representative of Senegal. Ml'. Cissê. Dia, Minister for the Armed Forces, and to our colleague. Ml'. Alex Quaison- Sackey, the representativeof Ghana, for the condolences they have expressed on the untimely death of Ambassador Evgeny Dimitrievich Kiselev. 104. Allow me also to thank aIl the others who have honoured us with an expression of condolence during this meeting. 1 shall convey yourfeelings of sympathy to the Government of the Soviet Union. 105. Gentlemen, the Security Council is dealing with an act of undisguised aggression by Portugal against the young African .8tate of Senegal. A few days ago Portuguese· military aircraft violated Senegalese air space and bombed and strafed the Senegalese viUage of Bomiiak. 106. The facts glven in the statement of Ml'. Diop, Perman,ent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations, and the material evidence produced here by Ml'. Cissê Dia, Minister for the Armed Forces of Senegal. as well as the documents submitted by the Senegalese delegation this morning, are weighty e,vidence indeed. 107. The situation is aIl the more serious since. as we know, this is not the first instance of Portuguese aggression against Senega!, In December 1961. Portuguese military forces on th,ree separate occasions took aggressive action against Senegal, which the Senegalese Government reported to the Security Council. At that time Portugal admitted. in a letter from its Permanent Representative to the President of the Security Council,lI first, the fact that units of the Portuguese army had violated the Senegalese border and, secondly, the fact that Portuguese mili- 109. Since the representative of Portugal persists in trying to minimize the significance of Senega!'s protest against these acts of aggression and calls the Senegalese charges "rather trivial". the following questions suggest themselves: Would Portugal find it "rather trivial" if its own air space were violated? Would Portugal find it "rather trivial" if its own territory were bombed by foreign ~ircraft? Would Portugal find it "rather trivial" if its own borders were violated? As the Portuguese representative has attemptedso eloquently to demonstrate that Senegal should really not be complaining at aIl about such "insignificant e'vents", to use his expression, it is natura1 to assume his basic premise to be that any State may take similar action against Portugal without objectionfrom Portugal. 110. ThePortuguese representative's entire statement was an attempt to prove only one thing-Portugal's "right" to commit aggression. Portugal in this case would like to have ru1es similar to the "one-way street regulations" of the City of New York, This approach to. the matter· sîllacks of only one thing-the logic .Qf die-hard colonialists and racists who once were a law unto themselves. lU. Today, when Portugal has committed a further aet ofundisguised aggression against a young AfricaB statEl. thereby violating the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter. the official repres(~:ltatives. a.p.!Î the .G()ve:m:'lment •. of .Por'i:ugàl. try 'tocontr0vert theobjectivefacts, which are lndisputable, by some 113. This is, 50 to speak, one official statement by Portugal. It asserts categorically that at the time the aggression was committed not a single Portuguese military aircraft overflew the area of Bouniak or any other area along the border with Senegal, or even took to the air at a11. 114. However, we already know from thestatementof the Senegalese representative thatthere exists another official Portuguese version of the incident, a version given by the authorities of so-called Portuguese Guinea at Bissau. Although the authorities of Portuguese Guinea also deny that Bouniak was bombed, they provide us with-shall 1 say-sorne highly instructive details that do not figure in the version put out at Lisbon and presented by Portugal in its letter to the Security Council. 115. The version given by the Portuguese authorities at Bissau, as reported· in the French newspaper Le Monde of 13 April, clearly and unequivocally acknowledges that on 8 April there were large-scale joint military exercises of Portuguese ground and air forces close to the Senegalese border. This is what the authorities of Portuguese Guinea had to say on the subject, according to Le Monde: "Joint ground-air exercises, it is explained at Bissau, did in fact take place near the Senegalese border on 8 April... " 116. It is true that the Portuguese representative also "recalled" these operations in his statement, calling them' "routine". But a legitimateprior question arises: Why did Portugal Und it necessary to conduct military exercises in the immediate vicinity of the border of a sovereign State? What is this if not an open attempt to exert pressure on Senegal by a show of force? 117. The Portuguese representative also stated categorically that during these "routine exercises" of 8 April, "no bombs or grenades were used by the planes". This, however, is in open contradiction with the version given by the authorities of Portuguese Guinea. The latter frankly admitted that ground targets were bombed from the air during the "joint exercises", On this, Le Monde writes: "The Portugueseauthorities also indicnte that during the exercises of 8 April two Portuguese servicemen were wounded by bomb explosions •••". 118. Yesterday, the Portuguese representative reiterated that "on 9 April· no military planes took to the air in Portllguese Guinea". Incontrast tothat assertion,however, the authorities of Portuguese G,.ünea r;tdmitted that on the following day, 9 April, Portuguese military aircraftdid make· flights in the 119. Thus, we have on the one Imnd Portugal's official staten1ent asserting that a violation of Senegalese ail' space by Portugal and aggression ngainst Senegal "would have been impossible", and on the other a Portuguese statement, also official, snying that on both 8 and 9 April Portuguese milital.'Y .~ircraft did in faet make not one but several flights, that the flights were made in the area concerned and that they involved the bombing of ground targets. 120. We have, then, a clear contradiction between the two official versions which the Portuguese authorities are now using in nttempting to cover up their act of aggression against Senega!. Obviously, the Portuguese representatives themselves cannot get their story straight. They cannot for the very simple reason that it is not easy to disprove real facts, not even for Portugal, which, as we know, has had occasion rather frequently to engage in that kind of exercise, and not only in the Security Council. 121. The Portuguese representative had the audacity, to put it mildly, to reproach Senegal with not having even tried to use the means for the pacifie settlement of disputes prescribed in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. 122. In the first place, this is at complete variance with the facts. In 1961, as we know, after three acts of aggression had been committed against itbyPortugal, Senegal agreed to seUle the matter by those means, so as not to convene the Security Council. The Senegalese representativpreminded the Council of this yesterday, and the fact is equally weIl known to the Portuguese representative, who preferred however to forget it. 123. Furthermore, does it not seem to the Council a mockery of the spirit and the letter of the Charter, of èommon sense itself, that a peaceful settlement is called for by none other than the representative of a country which has several times committed aggression against Senegal? The aggressor is trying to put on sheep's clothing, pass himself off as a mod,el of sanctity and innocence, and, as is his custom, his old, inveterate custom, depict the victim of aggression as virtually the guilty party. But. after aIl, we must have some elementary rules of decorum, and the representativ:e of Portugal sitting here at the Council table shoulçl be reminded of them. 124. Of course, the representative of one of the most savage of colonial régimes would like Senegal not only. to refrain from protesting against the aggression· ît has been subjected to, but also to meekly follow the adrice and admonition paternalistically addressed to tt.here by the Portuguese representative. The spirit of the old colouial times has apparently become so ingrained in sorne minds that they simply cannot -think in any other terms. In the words of the Russianfable, "To the hyenaits own grin did appeal, and so it stopped looking for any better ideal". 126. Thus, the facts of Portuguese aggression against Senegal are before us. The bombing of a peaceful Senegalese village by Portuguese pirates accompanied by the strafing of the village, as demonstrated here by the Senegalese representative, is an aggressive act for which the perpetrator must beur full responsibility. 127. What is the reason behind the present aggressive action by Portugal against Senegal? Why, after having committed a number of aggressive acts against that country in the past, is Portugal holding "joint military exercises", or~ to put it more plainly. making a show of force at the Senegalese border followed by a fresh act of aggression? 128. The plan of the Portuguese colonizers is simple. They want to intimidate the Senegalese people, to frustrate their efforts to consolidate the country's independence, to break Senegal's solidarity with the other African countries resolutely opposing the barbarous racist policy of Portuguese fascism in Africa. However, as Ml'. Lamine Diakhate, the Minister for Information of Senegal, so rightly said over the radio after the new act of aggression by the Portuguese aggressors: "An abyss separates us from Ml'. Salazar. His grenades cannot turn us from our course, and we shall not renounce our choice, a choice worthy of man. It is our unalterable position that we wish to put an end to colonial empires, to put an end to the last bastions of racism." 129. Portugal's aggression against Senegal is not an isolated deed of Portuguese colonialism and racism, which resorts to brutal punitive operations against the indigenous population of the Portuguese colonies, and, in co-operation with other colonialists, does not shrink from flagrant interference in the domestic affairs of African States, for the sake of the restoration of the crumbling positions of colonialism. 130. As we know from the report of the Officer-in- Charge of the United Nations Operation in the Congo, dated 8 October 1962VPortugal took an active part in the supplyof arms to Tshombé, manywhich entered Katanga through Angola. The transport of the arms over the Lobito-Dilolo railway-line would have been impossible without the consent of the Rortuguese authorities and, indeed, without the co-operation of the British Benguela Railway Company, to \\'Ihich this !ine belongs, 131. It i6 also known that the Portuguese authorities are harbouring on Angolan territory a consid~rable part of Tshombê's equipment and mercena.ries trans- 11 Ibid•• Seventeenth Year. Supplement for October, Novembel' and December 1962, document S/SOS3/Add.12. 134. The facts show irrefutably that the polieies and actions of the Portuguese Government in Afriea, strongly and justly eriticized primarily by the African States whieh are direetly eoneerned in this matter, have long sinee become a serious danger to the cause of peace and security. Both in their general and in their partieular manifestations, these policies constitnte a genuine threat to the cause of peace. 135. In its resolution 1807 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, the General Assembly noted with deep concern that the policy and acts of the Portuguese Government with regard to the Territories under its administration had created a situation constituting a serious threat to international peace and seeurity. At its· 142nd meeting on 4 April 1963, the Committee of Twenty- Four adopted a resolution which draws the attention of the Security Counci! to the situatipn thus created with a view to its taking appropriate measures against Portugal, including sanctions. 136. In bis letter of 31 March 1963 to the Chairman of the Committee of Twenty-Four,~ the Permanent Representative of Portugal asserted that Portugal's punitive measures in its colonies have "no bearing whatsoever" on any threat to peaee and security created by Portugal. 137. We may leave this letter to the conscience of the Permanent Representative of Portugal, the more so as the bcts demonstrate of themselves how sinister a bearing the brutal suppression of the indigenous people of the Portuguese colonies by the Portuguese ràcistshas on the threat to peace and security bath in and outside 'Africa. In this same letterwe do find, U A/AC.I09/36/Corr.l, (2). 138. By its aggressive actions against Senegal, which constitute a concrete expression of an aspect of Portugal's activities in Africa which is, contrary to the United Nations Charter and which tllkes the form of open military aggression by the Portuguese armed forces against states bordering the Portuguese colonies, Portugal has itself compelled the Council to examine the question. 139. However, the Security Council must do more than consider the question of Portugal's repeated aggressions against Senegal. In the interests of peace and security, of respect for the United Nations Charter and of upholding its provisions not only in words but also in deeds, the aggressor mustbegiventhe punishment he deserves and effective steps must be taken to make it impossible for him to repeat his acts of aggression. 140. The Soviet delegation considers thatthe Security Council should approach this matter in aIl seriousness. The Council cannot overlook Portugal's violation of what are in this case keystone provisions of the United Nations Charter. 141. The Charter binds aU Members of the Organization to "refrain in their international relationsfrom the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations". Portugal has flagrantly violated this provision of the Charter by committing acts of open aggression against Senega!. 142. By its latest aggression against Senegal, which is by no means an isolated act but a continuation of its earlier aggressive policy and the acts of aggression repeatedly committed against Senegal in the past, Portugal has again shown that in this regard too it persistently and stubbornly violates the principles of the Charter. Portugal's perSistent violation of other basic provisions of the Charter and of United Nations decisions Is evident from a great number of resolutions of the United Nations and its varied bodies, as many previous speakers have already pointed out. 143. The Soviet delegation deems it necessary for the Security Council, as the main organ of the United Nations responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, to take prompt and decisive action against aState which by trampling underfoot the Charter and principles that form the very keystone of our Organization has created a serious threat to peace and security in Africa, a threat which is growing and assumingmanynewforms and increasingly dangerous proportions. 146. In the afternoon. in order to enable the members to attend the funeral services for the late Ml'. Kiselev. 1 propose that the Counoil should not meet until 4.15 p.m. The meeting rose at 5.55 p.m.