S/PV.1206 Security Council

The Security Council will now proceed wlth its cousideration of the item before it. 1 cal1 first on the representative of Portugal.

This meeting of the Secnrity Couucil has been conveued as a result of the letter dated ‘7 May 1965 sent to the President of tbe Council by the Permanent Representative of Seuegal to tbe Unlted Nations [5/6338].u That letter contains the allegations used by the Government of Sen in requesting tbls meeting of the Council, aad Lso states wbat action that Government expscts th@ ComcflI to eLy. to vagain ask Portu 9 sce Off‘c‘al &?cord5 of tke securiry councu. nventfeth year. Supplemem for Api% May and June 1965. 4. Si nous :onstatons é la demande l’examiner St du territoire gaises’. stayée pour justifier Te m’empresse songe nullement Je ne fais d%tabIir ie tends bien 4. Examining document S/6338, we flnd that this meeting of the Seeurity CounciI has been requested by the Government of SenegaI “for the purpose of eonsidering tbe repeated violations of SenegaIese air space a& territory by tbe Portuguese authorities”. I submit tbat tbat a!Iegation, unsupported as it is by fac&. is too vague aad unidentifiable to justlfy the Sewqplese request. 1 hasten to add tbat in saylng tM5 1 mean no cri sm of the Security Council. P am merely malys document S/6338 wlth a view to subs aclusion wbich I am leading to and wbicb I trust the Couacil will be gond enougb to consider when Y ha.~ stated it. 5. Je disais fondé la convocation est vague d’autant que le Gouvernement au détail. imprécision lettres, repr&entant 24 février portugais on peut S/624Og, pour par le Gouvernement 5. As 1 was saying, the allegation made by the Senegalese Government in support of its request for a meeting of tbe Security Couacil is vagae and unidentifiable. That vagueness is further uaderlined by tbe mention of Ybirteen violations” said to have been noted by the Senegalese Goverament-of which d violations, nevertheless, no details. net even very brief details, are given in tbe letter. Tbat aspect is net relieved by reference to tbe letters addressed to the President of the Security CounciIon4 February [S/6177j” and 24 February 1965 [S/6196]g by the representative of SenegaI: for tbe allegations in both tbose letters bave already been aaswered by the 6. tenir réitérer répondu. resté souscrit-il fausse v&lté th@ Portaguese replies and to repeat allegations which dy heen answered. In this, the Government bas been truc to its past practice. PerhaR it also subscribes to tbe pernicious vlew that a falsehood is likely to be belleved and taken for the truth if it is repeated often enough. 7. It does not seem far from the truth that tbc Governmeat of Senegal first decided to cal1 upon the SeCUrity Counoil for a meeting and then cast aboul for accusations to make. and. finding nothing better, decided to repeat old and refuted charges. Such allegations as those made in doouments S/Sl77 a1Ic S/6196 obviously caanot be held to subatantiate tbe Semegalese request made in document S/6338 for B meeting of tbe Security Couucil. nement une réunion 8. Consequently, out of the Athirteen violations’ aWzed bu the Govermnent of Senegal in documeni S/633S, we bave to eliminate tbose which are men. %-mi in documents S/6177 and S/6196, on whioh thf 10. In the face of a11 this inexplicable wlnd and fury, one wonders what the real objectives of the Government of Senegal are. Whatever the Government of Senegal intends to do, it meanwhile requests that the Security Council “again ask Portugal to cesse the violation of ours-that is. Senegalese-J’territory”. 11. Before golng furtber 1 wlsh to stress that that request falls wlthin the scope of Chapter VI of the Unlted Nations Charter. Since document S/5279g bas heen mentioned in the agenda of tbls meeting, 1 wlsh to reiterate the considerations which were stated in tbis Council at the 1027th meeting, on 17 Aprill963, by the representative of Portugal in reply to allegatiens made by Senegal. On that occasion the representative of Portugal, citing Article 33, pointed out that the first duty of parties to a dispute is to seek a solution by peaceful bilateral arrangements before bringlng charges before the Security Council. In tbls connexion 1 should like to add tbat lnthe course of the same debate. in referring to Article33 ofthe Charter. the representative of the UnltedStates. Mr. Stevenson, expressed the hope “that in the event of a recurrence of any such miner incidents the Governments concerned Will use the measures provided by the Charter”. [1033rd meeting, para. 18.1 12. If the Government of Senegal feels in any way aggrieved by Portugal, it has at its disposa1 ways and means to approacb Portugal for the purpose of reachlng a peaceful settlement through bilateral chacnels. Nor cari it be alleged that onthe Portuguese side there is the slightest lack of gocd Will. The Government of Senegal knows lt better than most and bas already had abondant evldence of the Portuguese spirlt of peaceful co-operation. Therefore it is wlth ntter amazement that Portugal finds the Government of Senegal rushlng a second time to the Security Council, net only wlth vague and unsubstantiated allegations but also wlthout makingthe slightest preliminary attempt to talk matters over wlth the 3/ Ibid., Eighteen~ Year, Supplement for April. Msy ti June 1963. 13. 1 wiI1 WA spewlate about tbe motives whicbmight bave prompted the Government of Senegal to adopt pitate course. Asfurtherproof ofPortuguese towards SenegaI, 1 Will refrain from attritives. 1 hope. however, that tbis attitude of net 0e aecounted a sign of weaImess in our position but wilP rather be seen as asiga of our moral StlY?&l. 14. Consideriag document S/6338fromanotherangle. we find tbe Government of S leging ‘tbirteen violations of ils territory by , some of wbioh bave heen brougbt to the of tbe security CoumW. As I bave stated and as tbe Council knows. the latter group of alleged violations bas alreadybeen deaIt wltb by tbe Government of Portugal. At the time of making those allegations-1 refer tothosecontained in documents S/6177 and S/6196-the Government of Set&?$s4 obviously did net think tbem serious enough to cal1 for a meeting of the Security Council. Therefore it is all the more surprising that those same allegations, already refuted by Portugal, should now be invoked by tbat Government with a view to protbis debate-ami be it noted that they are the contained in tbe Senegalese request for tbis meet It seems that the Government of Senegagl has acted on an aftertbougbt snd. knowing the weakness of its position. bas tried to bolster it by alleging otber violations. I 15. When did these other violations takeplace? From tbe statement heard here yesterday it would seem that some took place before 24 February 1965. tba date of the second letter from the representative of Senegal [S/6196]. Wby. then, did net the Government of Senegal mention them in tbat letter? Again. others are allegad to bave taken place after that date. Why did tbe Government of Senegal net indicate any facts in the letter calling for a meeting of the Security Counoil [S/6338]? 16. TO us, a11 this is higbly enigmatic; and, as we analyse tbis process, our bewilderment grows apace. T~US we bave the following position. First, until 24 Pebmary 1965-tbe date of document S/6196-tbe Government of Senegal did net tbink that any allega- Mon it could make against Portugal until that date was serious enough to justify a meeting of the Security CounoiB. Secondly. the only concrete allegations oontained in the Senegalese letter calling for a meeting of the Counoil are the ones to whioh the Gove~rnment of Portugal bas already replied. Thirdly. none of the Otlwm allegations mentioned in the said Senegalese letter bas been even brieflv substantiated or so muob as made identifime in that letter. Fourtbly, the Governmest of Senegal ha6 made no effort whatsoever to talk matter& over witb Portugal inaccordanoe 17. For a11 those reasons, 1 submit with a11 due respect to the members of the Council that there are no prima facie grounds for this debate. We know what is meant by the expression “to raise a storm in a tea-cup”-but the Covernment of Senegal is trying to do more than that, it is trying to raise a storm in a vacuum. However, this debate has beguu, and we have already heard the representative of Senegal. Therefore 1 feel obliged to make a few comments on his statement. 18. Thls strange debate has many surprisingaspects. 1 have already pointed out some ofthem. 1 wlsh now to refer to another: 1 bave learned that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal. who was here even after the request for this meeting had been made, has since returned home, leavlng the Permanent Represdntative of Senegal to the United Nations to participate in this debate on his behalf. It is far from my mind to cast any aspersions on the intelligence or the debating talent of the representative of Senegal, but the departure of the Fore@ Minister seems to indicate that he does net attach importance to this debate. We cari easily understand why: this debate is 60 artificial. SO unreal. Nevertheless, the representative of Senegal has done hls best to give it an aspect of reality. 1 should like to be the first to commend his efforts, for his has been a very difficult task: nothlng short of trying to provide locations andnames for the airy nothings brought before thls Council by his Covernment. The Senegalese delegation has drawn ahundantly on imagination in dramatising what, even on its own showlng. ought to be considered casual occurrences-if indeed they took place-lacklng the signlficance which it is sought to attach to them. 19. Nevertheless, 1 shall analyse the allegations heard by the Council yesterday. 1 must observe first of a11 that, as 1 remarked yesterday. the Senegalese allegations keep on multiplying. Document S/6338 mentioned thirteen alleged violations. Perhaps findmg the figure thirteen rather ominous, the representative of Senegal began by mentioning sixteen, but hefore he snded hls statement he mentioned seventeen, In this 1 stand oorrected wlth regard to what 1 said yesterday on the subject. Yesterday I referred only to slxteen as having been mentioned by the representative of Senegal; that was wrong. he mentioned seventeen. This is the reason why 1 dld not reply to him at length immediately yesterday; for 1 though it convenlent to check on a few details in order to place them before the Council, although, basing myself on the information already available to me, 1 was in a position to reject, as 1 did. the Senegalese allegatiens as unfounded and unwarranted. 1 maintain that position. 196 or in the letter requestiig a meeting of tbe Security Council[S/6333]. 21. Seco~dIy, six additional alle violations were menttoned yesterday, the last of ch is supposed to tahen place on LB.19 and 20 Aprill965. Again, of these seems to bave garded by the rnment of Senegal as si enough to be braught to the notice of tbe ity Council until tbe representatlve of Senegal thought of allegiug yesterday for tbe first time. In spite of the careful inquiries made by the Por+uguese Governable to find tbe sligbtest eviviolatîons. and vre are left to onclusion tbat recourse has 21. supphamentaires. duites de ces incidents le Gouvernement pour avant parler qu6tes portugais, de ces prétendues qu’a en tirer été invoquées pikes. le Portugal. 22. Speciftcally, I wish to state, first, that there lations of Senegalese air space aircraft. On tbe 00ly occasion aircraft strayed into Senegalese an error of navigation in bad 18 G&ober 1963-the Portuguese nneous$ communtmicated its regrets and gave an expb.0ation (0 tbe G0ve Tbis is net only evldence of 0~ go of tbe tare we take to respect Senegalese 22. suite temps gais a spontanément nement C’est foi. mais encore l’espace W H note tbat yesterday tbe representative of in mentlonlmg some alleged vfolatlons. reio an aircraft bearing the number L.G. 092 d tbat it was a Portuguese aircraft. I cheched anal 1 am able to state categorically tbat there 23. 25. In another alleged case, tbat of 21 April 1964, tbe representatlve of Senegal concludes from holes found in a tree that they were oaused ‘apparently by bullets fired by Portuguese soldler@. Again, 1 feel that no comment is necessary. but probably the best comment would be a blank smlle. 26. In yet another alleged case. that of 14 June 1964. the representative of Senegal, after referrmg to a fight inside Portuguese territory, says that a stray bullet hit a house in Senegal and he concludes from this fact that it must bave corne from the Portugnese forces. Ile does net, of course, say that the Portuguese village was attacked by terrorists going there from Seuegal and that the bullet mlght bave been fired by them. 27. But the kind of evtdence on which the Government .of Senegal relies is brought out cbarly by another allegation made by the representative of Senegal yesterday. 1 draw the attention of the Couucil to wbat was described as tbe tblrteenth violation, said to have oocurred on tbe night of 28 February to 1 March 1965. According to the representatlve of Senegal, vthere was fighting bstween Portuguese soldiers and nationalists in the village of Mansacouuda, whloh lies one kllometre from the frontier of Portuguese Gulnea. During the battIea-1 continue to quote the representative of Senegal-Asome bullets struok the Senegalese village on the other side of the frontier.” [1205th meeting. para. 19.1 28. Thus. wo have the village of Mansacounda on the Portuguese side from whioh bulle& are alle to bave crossed the frontier into Seue e territory and, as a result of these bullets, buts are said to bave been burned. The representative of Senegal says that he has evidence to tbat effect. IIe says: “As for material evldence. oartrid fourteen unspent cartridges and one tear-ga were round nearby.v* [Ibid.] ~ 29. What do we gatber from thls? That firing took place from the Portuguese side into Senegaleseterrilese territory cartridge cases, unspent cartridges a a tear-gas grenade were found. NO~. I am not an expert in fire-arms but I do net tbink one bas to be au that cartridge cases and unspent cartri be fomd at the int from which tbey o if they were ese territory tbey must bave been re. In aq case. tbe represent 30. 30. Im still another alleged case a certah person is Im still another alleged case a certah person is said to bave pmetrated into Senegal. TO make the said to bave pmetrated into Senegal. TO make the &?2 as a violation, Lb& a?2 as a violation, Lbat rson is described rson is described ese inteMigeme a ese inteMigeme a we are asked we are asked to tbe knowlegs ofthe se autborities. wbich are careful to check of tbe security forces, particularly in fro&ieP area. 33. There remah the alleged cases of two Portuguese milimry persona said to bave been detained in SfmegaIese territory. Tbe Governrneut of Seuegal knows fuU weIl tbat tbey are net 09688 of violation of se territory. attributable to tbe Portuguese s. Two names of military personuel were meatioaed ye by tbe representative ofsenegal: cme Soares VareIa. 1 teck tbe trouble to check on Il?e and just this morning I got tbe reqtdred ~o~rn&g~o~ In tbe case of Soares. no information bas corne to tbeknowledge of the Portuguese 34. IIaviug said tbis. 1 again reject each and ail of tbe Seneaalese accusations. lt il1 becomes tbe Senegalese &vernment and its representative to makc SUC~ sratuitous and unfounded tilesations aeainst POE&& On tbe otber band, it is a matter ofcomi mn knwledge tbat tbe Government of Senegal bar= ~OUI”S and assists armed gangs organised in its territory to attack tbe peaceful population of Portue Guinea; it is tter of common knowledge t’ose armed infiltrating from Senegal bave been committ murder, Ioot sud arson in ve *effectivev is a matter oi 35. On the other hand, it is Portugal that oan justly complain of Senegalese assistance in violent actions against Portuguese Guinea. The relevant facts bave been made public by tbe Portuguese authorities from tlme to time. Although tbese facts underline serious infringements of international law by tbe Government of Senegal, 1 sbsll refrain from repeating tbem here, bath because they are well known and becausel do net wish to indulge in recriminations. This is tbe only reason why 1 do net go Mo details of armed raids carried out by elements coming from SenegaI into our territory. But tbe representative of SenegaI seemed to argue yesterday tbat, since we bave net oomplained to tbe Sscurity Council on any occasion, it must be concluded that no such violations of our territory have taken place. Tbis is a classic example of non sequitur, But lf tbe representative of Senegal would like to know the details. 1 refer him to the press notes put out from time to time by Portuguese autborities, which I cari make available to bim. But 1 think what 1 bave already said on tbe subject suffices to indlcate that the responsibility for all the difficulties in the relations bstween Portugal and Senegal falls solely and squarely on tbe Government of Senegal. 36. There is, however, one point that 1 would lii to emphasiae. It is this: although armed raiders pmceeding from Senegal constantly attack Poriuguese Guinea. the Portuguese seourity forces have rigorous orders to respect tbe fronthr of SenegaI, and 1 cari assure the Council tbat these orders are beingobeyed and will be obeyed. Tbe Goverment of Eenegal need net, therefore, entertain any apprebensions in thls regard. 37. The imaginative picture of Senegalese villages burned and territory and air space violated does not by any means fit in with tbe atmosphere of mutual trust wbicb prevails between the people on both sides of the frontier. Terrorists coming from Senegal ply tbeir nefarious trade in Portuguese Guinea, but the people of Senegal are most friendly towards tbe people and autlaorlties of Portuguese Guinea, and their friendliness is reciprocated. Just last montb, tbe Senegalese administrator of Cussouye thanked tbe Portuguese autborities for medical assistance given by tbem to tbe Senegalese people in bis area. Just three weeks ago, a Portuguese medical OffiCer was summoued urgently to tbe village of Sarg Uale to assist a Senegalese guard wbo was ailing and wbo bad been brougbt to tbe Porto ties for .reatment. Just a few days ago, a Senegalese mention only by is to queer the pitch for good relations among mm. It is these evil-dmrs be called to task. The Government of ws V&O they are. As for the people of Guinea, tbougb they are forced by tbose evil-doers to exercise their right of self-defenceand legitimately SO by s.ll standards of law and ~~~~~-~oy bave nothing but friendsbip for the people of Senegal. And this friendsbip, I repeat, is showa by daily acts of mutualcourtesyandassistance. 39. This is tbe redity. Tbe Portuguese security forces are under strict orders to respect tbe frontier ami tbey are obeying those orders. The rtuguese Guinea are most friendly towards the people of SenegaI. In tbls contez&, the picture of hurned villages and violated territories wbicb the Government of Senegal sreks to present is SO unrealistic as to be totally unacceptable. And tbis ï state most categorically and empbatically: tbere is no design on tbe Portuguese side, net eventhe shadow of an intention, to harm Senegal in any way. On tbe contrary, thsre is everjr desire to co-operate, and the fa& I bave just mentioned show that such is also tbe ciesire of the Senegalese people. It wouldbe blgbly regrettable, therefore, if anyone were allowed to corne in the way of tbis peaceful human intercourse based on good will and mutual belpfulness. 40. Pn tbis context, Portugal cannot but deplore the attempts made by the Senegalese Government to se& disputes where none exist. It tahes two to mahe a quarrel, and Portugal is net interestedinquarrelling with Senegal, notwithstanding tbe unfriendly acts practised by the Dakar Government. 41. I tbink 1 have commented sufficiently on the allegalions against Portugal wbicb the Security Council heard yesterday. 1 am MW constrained to touch npon one other point wbich arises from the statement of representative of Senegal. Withaview tobolsteri up a tottering case, as Isaidyesterday, the Senegalese re~~eseQtative sought to make reference, at the very 42. One thlng, however. has to be repeated bere, if only to set the record stralgbt. Despite the best efforts of Senegal, despite tbe continued plling up of its complaints-which on that occasion too, just as on this, kept multiplying from day to day-and despite all the mass of confusing detail which it frantioally put forward out of a sheer desire to build up a case damaglng to Portugal, Senegal suoceeded in proving very little beyond reasonable doubt, SO that those fair-minded members of the Council who wished to do justice were unable to cast an unqualifisd vote against Portugal. Tberefore, to base the present complaint, weak and baseless as it is, onthat other complaint wlll certainly not help tbe Senegalese Government. 43. On tbat occasion, it must again be stated, the Portuguese representative gave expression to the traditional desire of Portugal to respect scrupulously the territorial sovereignty of neigbbouring nations just as if it were its own, and once more 1 take tbis opportun@ to stress that traditional respect of the Portuguese nation for the sovereigntyofothernations. 44. Let me repeat that my Government bas carefully investigated the situation in respect of Senegalese allegations of violations of its territory andair space. 1 repeat also thst 1 cari state categorically and empbatically tbat not a single instance of violation bas been found to have tsken place. However, if the Government of Senegal still doubts tbe word of ti;e Portuguese Government, 1 hereby make a constructive offer on behalf of my Government. Our offer is this: that the Governments of Senegal and Portu agree to set up an inquiry team to investigate spesific allegations of violation of its territory and air space made by tbe Government of Senegal, the team to consist of three persans, appointed by the Government of Senegsl, one Government of Portugal, and the president, appointed by either the Sscretary-General of the United Nations or tbe President of tbe Securiiy CounciI in consultation with tbe two Governments concerned. 45. 1 submit tbat this is a fair offer and one whlch gives abundant evldence of ou+ good faith, and 1 bope that no one will fail to see in it concrets Proof of that good faith and of our desire for a constructive solution. 46. Tow tbe end of his statement yesterday. tbe representative of Ssnegal made some remar wbich must be considered purely ~~e~rlc~ and totalIy its 1533rd meetczzBLa* PS just and h?gitimate. But ? ha? again urity @0mci1, placing the fa& of tbe Couacil with great mcickration P?l> ny aumer0us to cause be fr0ntier violations , tbe violations at tbe Ko-b& tbe overflights s of Ta&& Djjndadji Bzdante, Dofia a& , often by sn.rprise, against Mansacourada ami Bambaiali damage and Beftfamilies ah been infiltrations of amested, tbeir affiliation+ xistence establisbed: they e anci espionage agents for Portugal. as tbe identification numbers oj ~imsaft nnd the identities of arrested persans. we are told +ht the allegation: mqpe. Yet facts bave been cited and village& H am sure tbat members of the Council with us tbat no Gûvernment representeo ted Nations could present su& specific for striotly domestic consumption, unlese fa& were real, unPess the vaages were actually vm. @very Govement must show a certaix t-4 cannot toy witb domestic opinion by as- 53. The representative of Portugal has nevertheless called for a settlement through bilateral negotiations. NO~, we know that Senegal has no diplomatie relations with Portugal, but even SO, if these facts are not truc 1 do not sec why Portugal would propose a settlement in this manuel-. 54. The departure of the Ministerfor Foreign Affairs of Senegal has also been put forward as an argument, but 1 do not ‘h-k that the Council should consider it seriously. 1 believe that the Council Will agree wlth us that the Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations is quite capable of defending his case against an Assistant Director for Political Affairs of the Portuguese Ministry of Fore@ A&irs. Therefore, arguments of this kind ought not to be considered by the Council. 55, It is, admittedly, diiicult to make a confession here, but the Council is accustomed to the defensive manceuvres of those three musketeers (South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and Portugal) which begin witb a denial of the Council’s competence and continue with the wholesale rejection of the evidence even before it is examined. The Council has always proved able to sort out the facts and Select those which clearly weigh against the acoused. 56. Indeed, Portugal now faces a struggle by African nationalists against its obsolete system of colonial oppression. Its repressive and inhuman laws have led to legitimate and hgnourable resistance by Africans, some of whom have taken refuge and received hospi- ~ainy among their brothers in Senegal, withwhomthey often share customs and language. 57. In these circumstances, Portugalconsiders itself entitied to introduce spies into Senegalese territory in order to gather information on the activities of nationaiists who have taken refuge there. It thinks that it may terrorize peacefui Senegalese peasants and carry out surprise raids on villages in me search for nationalists. 59. Africans bave always pointed to the possible repercussions on neighbouring countries of the waras useless as it is unjust-waged by Portugal in the African enclaves still under its colonial rule. 59. These acts of provocation and intimidation which Senegal has reported also occur on the frontier with the Republic of Guinea. The representative of Guinea has already drawn the Council’s attention to such incidents in his Ietter of 7 October 1964 [S/6000].9 A number of Heads of African States, meeting in Mali and Guinea on 14 and 15 March 1965, have declared solemn warnhg and tbe Council shaald to take beed of it. Senegal has tbe daty citizens, and if, pushed to the limit by wacy, it were to decide to react in overtusned, and hte eateaed. Tbat is why tbe Cou&l ese occurrences as mere horde* a.. TO assist , shauld any assistance be neeessary, in fa*-reaching implications of any mi.¶take of tbe repeated provocations by Portuguese military forces on tbe froUtiers of African States, I would brlng to your notice important statements by two African Presidents WIKI are ?re as moderates in the eyes of the world. 62. On 23 ApriI I965, Mr. Nyerere, President of the United RepUbIic of Tansania, madethefollowingstatement, as reported in Le Monde of 24 April: “The West bas the means-indeed the duty-to ly peaceful pressure on their ally, Portugal, in order tbat PortUgalal<s colonies may acbieve their independence frsely. We regard the Western countries as our allies on tbis peaceful roadto freedom. But if our etforts fa& we shall be forced to give Up the attempt to free PortugaI’s colonies peacefully. Ad if, wbich 1s unllikely, tic3 West were not to help us, we should bave to turn elsewhereforassistance. We ask the West to see that this does not happen, wbile there is still time.D 63. Qn 3 May 1965, speaking about the liberation of African torritories. President Boupbouet-Boigny stated, as seported in Fraternit&Matin of 5 Rlay: Wes problem concerns net only tbe Joint. African on but the whole of the Unity. We are therefore present to the Committee which was set up for tbat specific purpose, and we are prepared to make any sacrifice which that body might ask of Us. But we belong to a system whiob places discussion at the centre of its concern. While we wish to arrive at a solution quickly, by tbe most practical means, we must also be able to discuss. Wars bave never settled anything. That is why we seek a peaceful solution to tbe problem posedby the Iiberation of these territories. 64. The many incidents to which the representative of Senegal bas referred cannot be isolated from the context of contemporary history and above all from the determination of the patriots of so-called Portuguese Guinea to be free. These vicious tbrusts at Senegal and Guinea are part of tbe last convulsions Of an expiring colonialism. But unfortunately, before it breathes its last this colonialism cari still do great harm, net only to Africa but to the whole world. 65. Thus, whlle we must praise Senegal for the patience it has shown in the face of Portugal% provocations and for tbe sense of responsibllity which has marked its conduot, the Cou&l must cal1 Portugal to order. It must issue a serious warning to it by condemning the frontier incursions, the violations of air space and the repeated attacks on Senegalese villages which are the subject of our deliberations. At the same time, the Council must urge the Portuguese Government to take whatever action may be required to prevent any violation of Senegal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 66. We bave heard tbe statements of the Portuguese representative, but we know that there are military forces in so-oalled Portuguese Guinea, and we know too that at times some difficulties arise between the military and political authorities. We likewise know that for logistic reasons the militaxy often violate international regulations. Bowever, bearlng in mlnd the general context of Portugal% activities in Africa, bearing in mind the attitude of the African Statesan attitude 1 have illustrated wlth statements by two Heads of state-1 believe that it is the Council’s duty to cal1 upon the responsible political authorities to make whatever effort is required to discipline these military forces and to prevent such incursions. 67. These are the views which 1 thought my distinguished colleagues in the Council might wish to reflect upon.

The French delegation listened Carefully to the information given to us yesterday by the representative of Senegal as well as to the observations made just now by the representativeof Portugal. It has also studied in detail the documents before the Council. It cannot but deplore the continuing dispute between these two countries and express the hope chat tbe problem cari be resolved with a minimum of delay. 69. 1 shall confine my remarks strictly to the actual events, since. in spite of the number of infiltrations which have been mentioned, the problem is one with clear limits both in time sud in space. 70. Gur study of the question bas revealed two distinct phases in tbe evolution of the case. Onthe f tk incidents occurred by 71. et surtout Ier admettre des militaires, mations frontière: a eu lieu; i c6reales endommages, TP. On the otber after 6, 7 and 8 January 1965, and espeoiaAly 0 Pebruary, 28 February and tbe nature of the incidents cba : troops, n0 Acnger isolated but ed in units of greater or lesser ntier; quite beavy ftrfngoocurred on several wcasious; dweAAings and bams were seriously damaged by Pire at severaA points. 72. we look at the course of events, we bave tbe ssion tbat tension began t0 mou& from 24 April 1963 ~nv~ards. TO be sure. Qtber factors muse h sought to explain tbe resurgence of the incidents aad tbeir increasing seriousness. We seem to Brave proof, Awwever, of tbe usefulness of resohrtion 118 (1963). adopted unaninnously by the CounciA ~VO years ago. 72. pourrait si. a mesnre 1963, la tension me& expliquer aggravation. faite notre ‘73. ‘ho passages of tbat resolution seem to deserve particular attention. 1 am tbinhing, first, uf tbe tbird preambulsr paragr::: ‘1 In wbicb tbe Council, after mt %itb concern th. iae sate of relations in this area between tbe two parties concerned may lead to tension ou tbe occasion of any incident”, expressed %e bope tbat such tension Will be eliminated in accordame wAtb the provisions of tbe Charter of tbe United Nations”. haour understanding, theprincipal relevant provisioas are those of Article 33, whicb sets out the procedures for the settlement of disputes. Tbese are possibiAikies which the Cnuncil cauld, we feeA, once more invite the parties to explore. 73. d%re Je pose, lequel que l’état fessées tension @l’espoir formément Unies”. s notre pro&dures Il y a la des possibilités nons semble, explorer. 74. At gues without saying, bowever. tbattbe operative pzt, wbicb was fuAAy jnstified, in tbe view of tbe French C3wernment, by the gravity of tbe events tbat bad taken place at t!%at time, is ntill valid in the present case, particularly paragrapb 2, in wbfch the Council requests tbe Govermnent of Portugal, ‘in accordance with its declared intentions, to tahe whatever action msy be necessary to prevent anv violation Of Senegal’s sovereignty and territorid w.e@ity “. 74. fiait la gravit.6 dans mont gouvernement a sa déclaration pour de l’int6grit6~

The representative Of Portugal seems tohavechangsd his tactics somewhat. Before, he confinea himself to the old argument of counter-attack. today, he has adopted the method of systematically denying tbe facts. Yesterday, at the beginning of his statement, he tried to get us involved in formal questions, contesting the accuracy of the number of violations. He made much of the figure thirteen. 1 shall return to that question later. 1 should like, for the moment, simply to make some brief remarks on wbat we consider the most important points that he raised. 77. There is one argument which keeps recurring like a leit-motiv: our charges are said to be vague and unsubstantiated. But 1 said yesterday that wehave here, available to the members of the Council, items of material evldence which are not of our fabrication. There are cartridges, both fired and unfired; tbere is an unexploded Portuguese grenade which we bave deposited at our Mission and did net bring here for safety reasons; there are photographs showing latillet marks on the trunks of trees; tbere have been huts burnt down, fires, barris pillaged. These are net vague and unsubstantiated arguments; they are detailed facts. 78. The representative of Portugal wonders why we have not invoked Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations and sought a direct settlement with Portugal. But how cari we have the slightest confidence in Portugal when it displays such bad faith here? How cari we have the least confidence in Portugal when, after declaring its intention to respect scrupulously the sovereignly and territorial integriiy of Senegal, and in spite of the solemn warning addressed to it by the Security Council in resolution 178 (1963), it has committed sixteen violations of our territory in two years? What kind of confidence could bring us to enter into direct negotiations witb a country showing such evident bacl faith? 79. The representative of Portugal said that Senegal was trying to raise a storm in a teacup and had suc. ceeded only in raising a storm in a vacuum. My reply is that we have brougbt this question before tbe Security Council once again because we have confidence in the peace-making role of tbis supreme international body. We have corne ta askfor a peacefid and rapid settlement before it is too late. For the representative of Portugal sbould realize that there are no Senegalese troops on the frontier and if, instead of tbe murder of peaceful villagers in their beds, incidents had taken place behveen regular Portuguese forces and regular Senegalese forces, we would be witnessing not a storm in a teacup or in siderakle levity in sending here to represent it 5 of Goa, an officiai of the kiinistry of Fore@ WbQ is Ilot even a diplomat. representative of Portugal d&putes tbe idenlig of the soldiers md the intelligence agent wlmm we arrested. If tbe statements of Senegalese citisens are not enougb for him, I bope tbnt lie will at least believe tbe statements of tbe arrestedpersons themselws. It is tbey who informed us of their mmes 5nd identities, indicatiig tbe villages from wbicb tbey came and the units to wbich tbey belonged. As to the Portuguese intelligence agent, he g5ve bis mme as S5yé Diouka. 1 bope tbat the Portuguese representative Will 5t least glve credence to tbese statements of bis compaxtriots. 82. Tbe representative of Portugal mentioned tbe medlcal assistance provlded by Portugnese doctors to Senegalese villagers. We are oertainly grateiùl to them for these humane and friendly acts, but we would bave appreciated it more if tbe sxne villagers net been attacked and butcbered at midnigbt, if r bouses had net been burned down, tbeir barris destroyed and their vlIlage set on flre. In short. we would have appreciated tbese humanitarian activitles more if they had Sot been accompanied by acts of bandltry and pillage. 33. I corne now to the principal argument of the representative of Portugal. Havlng no serious explanation to put forward, tbe Portuguese representative, in addition to bis systematic and cynical denial of the fa&, h5s tried to startaprocedurai discussion and to create confusion by pohiting out that, wben we transmitted our letter requesting a meeting of the Security Council, we spoke of tbirteen violations wbereas, in my statement yesterday, I cited seventeen. Tbis is due simply to tbe fact that, between tbe time wben we submitted the letter and tbe Lime when I tO& the floor in tbe CounciI, we bad received information in tbe post concerning tbe last tbree OiQlatiOnS t0 wbicb I referreri yesterday. The representative of Portugal seems to bave rather a short memory regardlng tbese cases and, to ensure tbat s not forget them completely, I shall try, if C0uncil will allow me, to refresh bis memory ewhat concerning tbese tbree latest cases to be added to the thirteen earlier cases, which them- SelVeS fODowed tlae Bouniak incident, maklng a total of seventeen incidents. I snaU tberefore describe these ee latest cases once again. 84. Tk first case-that is to say, the flfteenth vioIati0n whlch I mentioned-was as folIow Of 11 t0 12 April1965, at 2.30 in the bitants of tbe viDage of Bambato awakened by tbe sound of beavy gunflre. Pires broke 85. The second case, or the sixteentb violation whicb 1 mentioned, was the folIowing. In the village of Sambalcounda, at midnigbt on 14 April 1965,100 Portuguese soldiers armed with rifles and maohineguns attacked suddenly. (If this is net a material fa&, 1 wander what the Portuguese representative regards as reality; 1 am bound to suspect him of being a follower of the existentialists or of tbe surrealists.) One hundred Portu8uese soldiers of the regular army, then, armed witb rifles and machina-guns, attacked the village of Sambalcounda. After they bad gone, tvfenty-four cartridge cases were picked up in the area. The representative of Portugal objected just now that the cartridge cases were simply picked up in a certain place and that it might very well have baen “terrorists coming from Senegalu who bad used them. But tbat is net what happened: what bappened was tbat 100 soldiers armed with rifles and machine-ps violated our borders, trespassed on Senegalese soi1 and fired these cartridges wbere they were found, in Senegalese territory. SO, tweniyfour cartridge cases were picked up. Before leavhig, these Portuguese soldiers engaged in some out-andout looting. They ransacked shops and private bouses and carried off booty worth some 487,750 francs. 86. Finally, the third and last case, or tbe seventeenth violation which 1 mentioned, occurred as fol- 10~s. On 18, 19 and 20 April I965, armed Portuguese raided the village of Bambato and forcibly carried off twenty-four refugees, inhabitants of Portuguese Guinea, who had taken refuge there in June 1964. Iiere again we bave tangible material facts. 87. The trath is that a11 the cynical denials which we hear prove only one thing: the diabolical determination of Portugal net to accept decolonisation. The fact tbat Portugal is represented here today by an officiai of tbe Ministry of Fore@ Affairs who is a oitisen .of Goa is higbly symbolic. We all remember the Goan affair. At a time when greatcolomal Powers suoh as the United Kingdom and France had given ‘ïreedom to their territories on tbe Indian peninsula, Portugal, which possessed only a ‘&y enclave tbere, remsed to decolonise, showing already the same fanatical and irrational obstinacv tbat it is sbowina today in Africa. Everyone knowi what was Gaadhif~ doctrine and tbe doctrine ofhis disciples who governed India at that time. It is a doctrine of non-violence. Because of this doctrine, the Indians besitated for a long time to use force in tbe case of Goa, a tiny enclave surrounded by a country witb a population of tbree hundred million. Around tbe world everyone asked: “Bow is it that tbe Indians do net try to settle this Goan question by force?” We a11 know that it was respect for tbe prinoiple of non-violence, proclaimed by Gandhi and perpetuated later by Nehru. which made the Indians hssitate SO long in resorting tive of Portugal said just now that ntless. It is net pointless. But if Of PortugaP raally tllidm that it that tbere ti be more Qcas, 1): 1 6 bgln by ade by tbe representas statement today. n 1 expressed surprise tbat tbe Fore@ of Senegd was not bere and wben 1 drew demonstrate tbe importance it attaches to it. As I bave said, I drew tbe conclusion that tbe absence of Foreign Minister of Senegol demonstrated that did net attach importance to tbis debate. It 1s net for us to show tbat we att?ch importance to the dewas for the Fcreigu Minister of Senegal to t be attached importance to it.Tbatis aI1 that 1 meant. My remarks have somebow been misunderstood. fact that 1 bail from Goa bas been inwked. For a wbile I almost wondered whetber the subject of tbis debate was the matter brougbt before the Cou&l by Senegal or tbe question of tbe invasion of Goa by the n of India. 1 cannot be blamed for referring to matter. 7% question bas been raised out of place out of time by the representative of Senegal, and I am therefore constrained to make a few remarks in that connexion. 82. If I understood tbe representative of Senegal carrectly. lie said tbat tbe example of the Unionof PncUa wauld be follawed in Africa. I suppose tbat tbat will also be caBed self-determination and nonviolence. I do net propose to elaborate on that point. 93. 1 turn ncw to tbe matter bofore us at tbis time. I said chat I rejectedthe allegations made by tbe representative of SenegaI. I did not say that tbose allegas were vague: I said that the allegations made in letter in whicb ti-ie Coveimment of Senegal reted a meeting of the Security Council werevague. rejeoted the allegations made by the representative but I did net reject tbem out of band in tire ving them due consideration. Indeed, my detailed reply until tbis morning, I tbat 1 bad carefully cbecked on the alleby tbe representative of Senegal. 1 even said that some of the details and other information wbicl~ I needed bad been obtained only this morning. That sbws how carefully I bave examined the allegatiens made by the representative cf Senegal. I bave denieci those allegations. 95. 1 have carefuIly verified the facts, and I am in a position to state that the allegations are false. 1 bave been told that the villages bave net beeninvented, tbat tbe bulle& have net been invented. But let “8 suppose that a crime has been committed and the corpus delictl is tbere. From that evidencecantheconclus’- bxwn tbat a particular person ha6 committed the crime? Iiow can the events alleged by the representative of Senegal to have taken place be attributed to Portuguese security forces? We state most categorically and emphatically-as we bave stated more than once, even at the cost of tedious repetitionthat no Portuguese security forces have cmssed into Senegal. 1 do net know what else is expected of me. We have been most careful on this point. Our security forces have the most rigorous orders to respect Senegalese territory. No case of the iufringement of that order has corne to the knowledge of the Portuguese Government. Wbat more am 1 expected to say here? 96. 1 have shown that the allegations made by tbe representative of Senegal do net prove anytbing. Ihave given examples of the allegatlons he has made. Some capsules have ?een found, and he concludes that they have corne fmm a village one kilometre away from the frontier. Am 1 to accept tbat klnd of evidence? 97. 1 am asked why 1 make an offer of bilateral arrangements if the allegations are not truc. I said very clearly in my statement tbat our position is that there have been no violations of Senegalese territory or air space, but that if the Senegalese Government still doubted our word, we were prepared to accept an inquiry on the terms which 1 set forth, as proof of our good wlll and spirit of co-operation. 96. 1 did not lndulge in any comments on pmcedure when 1 mentioned tbe multiplication of allegations by Senegal. 1 merely wished to indlcate our surprise. First, the allegations are kept vague, and then some concrete allegations are produced fmm which no conclusions cari be drawn-certainly not the conclusions wbicb the representative of Senegal wouId bave tbe Cou&l draw. Tbis is net a procedural debate. 1 do net mind if the representative of Senegal produces one hundred iürther allegations. But he must be able to prove chat tbose allegations correspond to the facts. 99. FinaIly, 1 should Iik8 to say this. There is no tension acros8 the frontiers. I bave tried to glve tbe Council an id** of the atmosphere along tbe frontier between Senegal and Portuguese Guinea. Someonemay say, ‘The Portuguese repre is deaylng again; he simply denies e But again Am I to say that there is tension when there is no tension? 1 do net think tbat 1 am expected to do tbat. LOI. 1 reprendre d16gations sentant :adre risque pas d%re r. USIIER (Ivory Coast) (tsaaslated from 03x-y to bave to take tbe fbor again, ertain allegations wbicb bave just representative of Portugal need to be plaoed in a mme aorrect cmtext if the Security Goun& is net to be led astray. esentative of Portugal said tbat, wben se adits identity is proved, the mere corpse exists does not automaticaRy accusation against a particular person. Bd¶y as saon as the police discover a to fiid out bow the victim was kilIed dom. T~US tbey examine earller cases to see w&$,her in tbe past anyone was killed in the same cireumstances and sameway, andtheculprit was discovered. Tben, tbis circumstantial evidence exists, tbe fingerprints, if any, are checked, and a charge cao tben be brou IO2. y a un cadavre, fait automatiquement donn6e. la police voir ainsi qu’elle s’il n’est pas arrivé m@mes circonstances. L’on ait découvert pr&omption tales, s’il y en a, et on esralors sation. 103. In the present case, I tbink that the facts pmved by tbe representative of Senegal are clesr. In 1963, certain events took place at Bonniak and tbe Couacil wlIl recall that tbe Fortuguese representative at that time stubbornly denied tbeir occurrence. He did SD untE a clear contradiction was noted between a statement from tbe local autbority in so-called Fortuguese Guinea and the statements of the political authorities in Portugal. whereupon the Fortuguese representative in the Council was obliged to alter his metbod of defence-altbough be stilI would net really admit anything. 1 feel that the counci1 s d take tbis previous case into account. :?3, faits E&(?gal produits représentant ment. très locale l’autorité sentant système ment tenir 104. Then there is the question raised by the repreof Portugal as to wbether the Africans are of doing in Africa what was done in the case of Goa. The Africans have patience. It is very difficuit, bowever, to rival India’s abnost philosophical patience, and if Portugal succeeded in driving India to the end of its tetber it is to be feared tbat tbe Africans may be similarly driven. Tbis is what the Council must seek to avoid by every means, ifit is at aII possible to do SO. 104. sentant disposés Les difficile sophique pousser SiSSe c’est cela que le Conseil tous les moyens, 195. As I said just now, no attempt sbould be made 105. to mislead the Council and to ignore tbe truc context drait of tbe incidents wbich bave taken place. The representative of Portugal declares tbat there is uo tension et a sortir on the frontiers of so-calied Portuguese Guinea and sont produits. Senegal. That is no tbanks to Portugal. The representaqu’il tive of Senegal Las told us tbat his country has net Guinde stationed any forces along the frontier. Everyone pas le fait bows. on tbe other hand, that Bortuguese forces are nous a dit ici que son pays n’avait stationed on the frontier. On tbe Senegalese side, the forces representative of S’enegal fias told us, there are only par la frontière. a very small number of gendarmes on bicycles patrolling a frontier of some 300 kilometres. What sentant the Council must do, therefore, is to ensure that metres Senegal, which naturally has a rigbt to defend ita nombre citisens, is flot driven to extremes. The facts must Ce qu’il c’est faire The meeting rose af 1.Sp.m. IN UNITED United Nations publications may be obtained distributcrs throughout the world. write to: United Nations, Sales Section, ENT SE PROCURER LES PU LICATIONS Les publications des Nations Unies sont agences dépositaires du monde entier. Informer-vous ou adressez-vous 6: Nations Unies, Section COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidos casas distribuidoms en todas Portes del diriiase a; Naciones Unidas, Secci& Litho in V.N. Price: $US. 1.00 (or eqaivalent in ocher con-encies)